2025:JHHC:27590 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 701 of 2025 ------ Shreya Raj Srivastava, wife of Manwill Srivastava, daughter of Praveen Srivastava, aged about 30 years, resident of Alkapuri, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Manwill Srivastava, aged about 35 years, son of Late Ram Prasad Srivastava, resident of Flat No.104, Sri Krishna Apartment, Bhosle Lane, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, P.S. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate Order No.05 / Dated :10.09.2025 Petitioner is the mother of a minor boy child aged 3½ years and the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.06.2025 by which the custody of child has been given to the father. 2. The petitioner being the biological mother of minor child was earlier given interim custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1925 vide order dated 22.05.2025, subject to furnishing an undertaking that she will not take the minor child beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ranchi and will take proper care of child and produce him as and when directed by the Court. 3. The order of interim custody has been recalled and the custody was ordered in favour of opposite party- father, on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any undertaking in terms of the order for interim custody on 22.05.2025 and had taken the minor child with the assistance of local police and other authorities. Further, the father of the minor child has been released from the judicial custody and it was he, who was taking care of the minor child for 2½ years and his treatment was going in Rani Children Hospital. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner got married with the opposite party on 26.11.2020 and the child was born on 27.08.2021. The child is still below 15 years therefore, in terms of Section 6(a) of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, guardianship shall ordinarily be the mother. The undertaking has already been given by way of an affidavit dated 19.05.2025 that she is a working lady and is capable to take care physically, mentally and financially of her minor child. The 2025:JHHC:27590 father/opposite party is involved in a spate of criminal litigations unrelated to matrimonial offence and therefore, in the best interest of the minor child, the custody should be with the mother. 5. It is also submitted that the order for recalling the custody is without any cogent reason and it is only stated that since the father has been released from judicial custody therefore, the custody should go to him. However, it is contended in this regard that father has already been released on provisional bail and his bail applications are pending. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party that Section 6(a) of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is not mandatory and overall interest of the minor child is of paramount consideration while considering the issue of custody. Initial custody was with the father and the interim custody was given to the mother and the interim custody was with the father till he was in custody. Unless there was some extraordinary circumstance, there should not be dislocation of custody of the child as held in Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is apparent that the interim custody of the child was allowed vide order dated 22.05.2025 in favour of the petitioner, and the same was recalled after a month on 26.06.2025. The main ground for recall was that the father has been released from judicial custody. It is not in dispute that the opposite party has only been released on provisional bail and still facing criminal prosecution. In this view of matter, it defies reason as to why the dislocation was made just after one month of the order. As rightly stated by the counsel on behalf of opposite party that the child cannot be made shuttlecock between the warring parties. The mother is gainfully employed and the child is a minor therefore, his interest will be best served under the custody till he attains majority. Impugned order is set aside. Custody of the child is to be restored in favour of the petitioner, subject to the condition as earlier laid by the Family Judge. Learned Family Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without being prejudiced by this order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit