HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 274 of 2021 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. 2. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by Smt. Namita Upadhyay, widow of Late Ghanshyam Upadhyay, seeking custody of her minor daughter, Reet Upadhyay (aged about 15 years), and praying for a direction to hand over the corpus to her. 3. The matter was initially taken up on 17.08.2021, when the corpus was produced before this Court and was personally interacted with. At that time, the corpus expressed her comfort and willingness to continue residing with her paternal uncle and cousins, with whom she had been living since childhood. Accordingly, she was permitted to go back to the place of her ordinary residence. It was also noted that the petitioner no. 2 (mother of the corpus) had been residing separately in Noida since 2015, having left the matrimonial home when the child was about five years old, and had not filed any claim or petition for custody/guardianship before the competent court. 4. After 17.08.2021, the case was successively listed on 21.09.2021, 10.11.2021, 07.01.2022, 01.09.2022, 05.04.2023, 24.04.2023, 12.05.2023, 24.05.2023, 31.10.2023, 19.01.2024, 13.08.2024, 29.08.2024, and 25.08.2025, but no effective order has been passed. 5. After interacting with the corpus in open Court, as well as with her biological mother and the family members present, this Court finds that the corpus has been in the care and custody of her joint family at Deoria since birth, and continues to express her preference to remain there. The petitioner Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jawahar Lal Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Juned Alam Reet Upadhyay (Corpus) And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) no. 2, on the other hand, has been residing separately in Noida since 2015, and has not taken any legal recourse under the Guardians and Wards Act to seek custody. 6. While it is true that the mother is a natural guardian, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not the proper forum to adjudicate disputed questions of guardianship and custody, which appropriately fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court under the relevant statute. 7. While deciding such petition, the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration. In the present proceedings, after having interaction with the child, mother and the relatives present in the Court with whom the child has been residing since childhood, the welfare of the child cannot be ascertained. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty to petitioner no. 2 to approach the competent court under the Guardians and Wards Act or any other applicable law for adjudication of her claim regarding custody of her daughter. 9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present habeas corpus petition and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in any such proceedings. 10. The corpus, being nearly 15 years of age, is left at liberty to reside either with her mother or with her paternal family at Deoria, as per her own choice. September 10, 2025 Anil K. Sharma HABC No. 274 of 2021 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad