Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71739 Court No. - 78 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 163 of 2025 Petitioner :- Asgar Ali And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State authorities, Shri Mukesh Kumar Pandey and Shri Punit Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 and 5 and have gone through the record of the case. 2- The instant Habeas Corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking custody of minor child/corpus by petitioner No. 1 and 2, who are father and grand-mother of corpus (petitioner No. 3), who is presently being taken care of by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are maternal grand-mother and maternal grand-father of the corpus respectively. 3 -On 10.04.2025, when the case was taken up, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following orders: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.3, Madiha Fatima, a minor and daughter of petitioner no.1, has been allegedly detained unlawfully by respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. Issue notice to respondent nos.4 and 5 through the Station House Officer, Police Station Atarsuiya, District Prayagraj, directing them to produce petitioner no.3, the minor corpus, before this Court on the next date of hearing. 3. Steps be taken accordingly. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj is directed to ensure that petitioner no.3 (the minor corpus) is produced before this Court on the next date of hearing, along with respondent nos. 4 and 5. 5. Put up this case as fresh on 05.05.2025. 6. The learned A.G.A. is directed to ensure strict compliance with the directions issued herein above. 4- Pursuant to the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 10.04.2025, the corpus has been produced before this Court today by Shri Ramendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Attarsuiya, Prayagraj. 5- It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that marriage of Neha Parveen (mother of corpus) was solemnized with Asgar Ali, petitioner No. 1 on 22.07.2022 and from their wedlock, petitioner No. 3, Madiha Fatima was born on 13.05.2024, who is presently aged about a year. 6- It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the health of Neha Parveen was not good, petitioner No. 1 tried to extend better treatment to her, but respondent Nos. 4 and 5, forcibly took away Neha Parveen to her parental house and admitted her in Hospital, but on 05.11.2024 she died due to her illness. 7- It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is running a salons and is earning about Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) per months and hence, he along with his mother and sister are capable to take care of corpus, petitioner No. 3. 8- On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that mother of corpus was being harassed and tortured by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in her matrimonial home and there was consistent demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-(rupees two lac only) and when corpus/petitioner No. 3 born, they started more harassment on the ground that she has delivered a female child. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are maternal grand-mother and maternal grand-father of corpus, in order to save the life of their daughter (mother of corpus) got her admitted in the hospital, but she could not survive. It is also submitted that Ziaul Haq, maternal uncle of the corpus, who is son of respondent No. 5 has also moved an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS against petitioner No. 1 as well as Simran, Qasim, Seema and Qutub Uddin seeking directions to lodge a first information report against them. The said application is still pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Allahabad. Lastly, it is submitted that if the custody of corpus is handed over to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the corpus will suffer an irreparable loss, hence the relief as sought for by means of this habeas corpus petition is liable to be refused. 9- Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that it is not in dispute that on account of harassment of mother of corpus/petitioner No. 3, she was taken to her paternal house, where she was admitted in the hospital, but she died during her treatment. At present, corpus is being taken care of by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are maternal grand- mother and maternal grand-father of corpus. Hence they cannot said to be stranger and under the facts and circumstances of the case, custody of minor child/corpus, petitioner No. 3 cannot said to be illegal detention by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 10- I also find that petitioner No. 1 being father of corpus (petitioner No. 3) has an alternative remedy to approach the competent court for ventilation of his grievance under the Guardian and Wards Act. 11- In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 12- It is made clear that in case petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 approach the competent court under the Guardians and Wards Act, this order shall not come in the way in deciding the said case on merits. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ishrat Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad