Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74991 (ALL)

ROHIT DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/22868/2025 · 2025-07-16

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115513-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22868 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rohit Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. It is alleged that respondent no.3, who is wife of the petitioner, is preventing him from meeting their daughter, namely, Prashvita Dubey @ Vani. 2. It has come on record that a First Information Report, bearing Case Crime No.49 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Kanpur Nagar is registered against the petitioner. Respondent no.3 is stated to be residing with her daughter in the house of her brother at District- Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner claims to be a bank employee and residing at District- Lucknow. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a representation before the Police Commissioner for facilitating his meeting with his daughter. As his grievance has not been redressed, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition for a direction to Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, District- Kanpur Nagar to facilitate meeting of the petitioner with his daughter. 4. During course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner challenged the FIR lodged against him before this court in which the court directed for mediation between the parties. However, the mediation has failed. 5. The minor girl is admittedly less than five years, therefore, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the custody shall ordinarily be with the mother. 6. In our opinion, intervention of the police authorities as sought for in the instant petition will only complicate the matter and have adverse effect on the well-being of the minor. 7. As the petitioner is claiming visitation rights, therefore, we permit the petitioner to approach the family court for redressal. We further provide that in the event, any proceeding is initiated by the petitioner in this behalf, the concerned court will decide the same as expeditiously as possible. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad