Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63306 Court No. - 76 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 210 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raj (Corpus) And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra,Ashwani Mishra,Bed Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. The supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The present habeas corpus petition has been instituted by petitioner no.2, the biological father of the minor corpus, seeking relief in the nature of protective custody and enforcement of visitation and communication rights. It is relevant to note that petitioner no.2 is presently facing trial under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in connection with a criminal case registered at Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya. The said proceedings are pending adjudication before the competent criminal court at Auraiya. 3. The allegations against petitioner no.2 pertain to the alleged custodial death of his wife (the mother of the minor corpus), purportedly arising out of dowry demands. The seriousness and gravity of the charges cannot be overlooked at this stage. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the minor corpus, aged approximately six years, was produced before this Court by respondent no.4, the maternal grandfather (Nana) of the minor. 5. The Court interacted with the minor in camera. During the said interaction, the child expressed a clear, consistent, and voluntary preference to remain in the care and custody of his maternal grandparents, with whom he presently feels emotionally secure, cared for, and protected. 6. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for petitioner no.2 did not press the prayer seeking custody of the minor corpus and confined the relief to visitation and communication rights only. 7. In view of the totality of circumstances, particularly keeping in consideration the paramount welfare and best interest of the minor child- as enshrined in Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and reinforced by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, [(2009) 1 SCC 42]- this Court is of the considered view that the minor's continued residence with his maternal grandparents is presently in his best interest. 8. However, in order to preserve the parent-child bond and to ensure continued emotional contact, it is directed as follows: (a) petitioner no.2 shall be entitled to communicate with the minor corpus via telephone or audio/video call at reasonable intervals, preferably twice a week, at times mutually agreed upon by the parties, (b) respondent no.4 shall facilitate such communication in a cooperative and child-friendly manner and shall provide petitioner no.2 with a functional mobile number for the purpose of establishing such contact, as and when necessary, and (c) in case petitioner no.2 desires to meet the minor in person, he shall inform respondent no.4 reasonably in advance. The visitation shall take place in the presence of a responsible adult relative or at a neutral and child-friendly venue, subject to the emotional comfort and psychological well-being of the minor. The parties shall make conscious and good-faith efforts in organizing such meetings. 9. It is clarified that the present arrangement is purely interim in nature and shall not prejudice the rights of either party to seek substantive custody, guardianship, or modification of visitation terms before the competent court under applicable laws. 10. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present habeas corpus petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2025/Saurabh Vinod Diwakar, J. Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad