HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 191 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner/Neeraj Tiwari, who is the father of Satya (Minor/Detenue) and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and also Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the private opposite party(s) as well as perused the record. 2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "(i) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus whereby directed the opposite parties to release the detinue/petitioner in favour of natural guardian father, Neeraj Tiwari which was forcibly detained by opposite party No.4 to 6." 3. Taking note of the facts of the case, this Court on 14.11.2025 had passed the following order:- "1. Heard. 2. Let the minor be produced before this Court on 21.11.2025 by opposite party nos. 5 and 6. It is to be noted that opposite party no.4- Shyam Kumar Mishra (husband of the opposite party no.5 and father of the opposite party no.6) has expired. 3. The Station House Officer concerned is directed to ensure the compliance of the order. 4. The aforesaid is for the reason that the present petition is for seeking custody of minor namely, Satya, which has been filed by his father. Opposite party no.5 is minor's maternal grand mother and opposite party no.6 is maternal uncle in whom custody the minor is at present and wife of Neeraj Tiwari (father of the minor) is in jail in a criminal case arising out of F.I.R No. 21 of 2020 lodged at P.S Sarita Vihar and has been convicted for the offences under Section 6 read with Section 17 of POCSO Act and under Section 21 of POCSO Act." 4. Thereafter, on 21.11.2025 in the presence of parties concerned, this Court had passed the following order:- "In compliance of this Court's order dated 14.11.2025, Sri Indra Bhushan Mishra/opposite party no.6 alongwith Satya(minor)/detenue are present before the court duly identified by their counsel. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari/petitioner due to some personal reason could not appear before this Court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arvind Kumar Shukla, Pawan Kumar Singh Satya (Minor) Thru. Natural Guardian Father, Neeraj Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) In view of aforesaid as also taking note of the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the case is adjourned for the day. List/put up this case on 03.12.2025. On the next date, opposite party no.6 alongwith minor Satya shall appear-in-person. The petitioner/Rajendra Kumar Tiwari shall also remain present before this Court on the next date of listing, else inference could be drawn." 5. Thereafter on 03.12.2025, after taking note of the statement of learned counsel for the parties and also of the parties' concerned present before this Court, this Court had passed the following order:- "Heard. In compliance of this Court's order dated 21.11.2025, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, who has filed the present petition seeking custody of minor Satya and opposite party no.6/Sri Indra Bhushan Mishra alongwith Satya(minor)/detenue, are present before this Court, who have been identified by their respective counsel namely Sri Ajay Kumar Advocate and Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla Advocate. List/put up this case before this Court on 08.12.2025. On the next date Sri Neeraj Tiwari shall appear before this Court, who shall also pay Rs. 2500/- per month w.e.f. this month to opposite party no.6/Sri Indra Bhushan Mishra (brother-in-law of Neeraj Tiwari), for maintaining the Satya(minor) son of Neeraj Tiwari, who is living with opposite party no.6." 6. Today, when the case was taken up, Sri Ravi Shankar Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner, stated that the opposite party No. 6 has refused the amount, as indicated in this Court's order dated 03.12.2025. 7. Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the private opposite party(s) has not disputed the aforesaid. 8. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid including earlier order dated 03.12.2025, quoted above, which was passed taking note of the fact that Minor/Detenue was not inclined to live with his father namely Neeraj Tiwari/petitioner, this Court finds that the present petition is liable to be disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner/Neeraj Tiwari (father of Minor/Detenue) to avail other remedies, which includes the remedy under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. 9. Ordered accordingly. December 12, 2025 Arun/- HABC No. 191 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench