Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133051-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 544 of 2025 Appellant :- Farida Khatoon and 2 others Respondent :- Superintendent of Police and another Counsel for Appellant :- Abou Sofian Usmani, Meraj Khan, Sudhir Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Rajiv Singh (S.C.), Sudhir Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 388 of 2024, whereby learned Single Judge, looking into paramount welfare of the minor corpus, has ordered for handing over the custody of minor girl child to respondent-father, who was directed to take care of the corpus and her overall well being. Further, the appellants-maternal grandparents were granted meeting rights. 2. The appeal is barred by 320 days. Submissions have been made that the appellants have earlier filed Special Appeal Defective No. 222 of 2025, which was also barred by limitation but wrongly challenged order dated 10.09.2024, by which the petition was finally disposed of, which appeal came to be dismissed on 02.07.2025 as not pressed. On account of the same, there was delay in filing the present appeal. 3. Counsel for the respondents made submissions that the appeal has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. The application seeking condonation of delay is, accordingly, allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, wherein the custody granted to the respondent-father of the minor girl child has been questioned, a perusal of the record indicates that the appellants are aged 63 and 65 years respectively and have filed proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent, inter alia, with the submissions they do not have any means of income and for the purpose of maintaining the child in question, they may be paid Rs. 15,000/- per month by the respondent. Submissions were also made that the respondent was having a lot of land and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. The indications made in the application seeking maintenance were sufficient for learned Single Judge to come to a conclusion that the paramount welfare of the minor corpus was to be placed in the custody of the father. Nothing has been indicated in the present appeal except for claiming a purported legal right to have custody of the minor child. 7. In view of the fact that the plea raised under Section 125 Cr.P.C. supported by affidavit clearly indicated that the appellants are not in a position to maintain the girl child on their own, the passing of the order by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. However, in case, in future any circumstance arises, wherein the appellants have any cause, they can always take steps in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 P.Sri./Pkb (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad