SMT IZNA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
HABC/794/2025 · 2025-09-15
Vinod Diwakar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 91014 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 91014 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 794 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent, and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner no. 1, seeking custody of petitioner no. 2 (her minor son), who is alleged to be in the unlawful custody of respondent no. 4 – the husband. 3. On the last date of hearing, two weeks' time was granted to the learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions. Pursuant thereto, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, submits that owing to matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4, multiple proceedings have been initiated by petitioner no. 1, including (i) an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (ii) proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and (iii) registration of an FIR under Section 498-A I.P.C. It has further been pointed out that as per the statement of petitioner no. 1 recorded by the police, the dispute between the parties is essentially matrimonial in nature and is already pending consideration before different forums. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced and upon perusal of the status report placed before this Court, it appears that the grievance of petitioner no. 1 pertains to the custody of her minor child, i.e., petitioner no. 2. Issues relating to custody of a minor fall within the exclusive domain of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and cannot be effectively and appropriately adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Srivastav, Shivam Chitrans Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt Izna And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that petitioner no. 1 shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy by instituting proceedings under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before the court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with law.
September 16, 2025 Anil K. Sharma HABC No. 794 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad