( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No. 584 of 2025 Kumar Abhishek, aged about 37 years, Son of Shri Indrajeet Singh, Resident of L-14, 99 Koylanchal City, Near Bhuli Basti, P.O.-Bhuli, P.S.-Barwadd, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its OFFICE AT Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Police, P.O. & P.S. and District Dhanbad. 3. The Station House Officer, P.O. & P.S. Barwadda Police Station, Dhanbad. 4. The Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee (CWC), P.O. & P.S. District Dhanbad. 5. Swadhinta Pal, aged about 33 years, wife of Kumar Abhishek, daughter of Shri Amarendra Pal, presently residing at A-2, Lakshmipura, Behind Vijay Shri Apartment, Near Muskan City, P.O.+ P.S.- Vijay Nagar, District- Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. … … Respondents … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. J.F.Toppo, G.A.V : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.V. For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate … Order No.12/dated 19.02.2026 The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs. (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus, or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No.5 to produce the minor daughter of ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 2 the petitioner, namely Shivanshika Sisodia, aged about 3 years and 3 months, who has been in the exclusive and forceful custody of Respondent No.5 and her family members since 03.11.2024, before this Hon’ble Court, and to permit the petitioner to exercise regular access with his daughter. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus, or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent No.5 to restore the custody of the minor daughter to the Petitioner (father), at Dhanbad, which is the place of her ordinary residence. (c) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take immediate and appropriate action in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 07/2025, and to assist in ensuring that the petitioner is not unlawfully deprived of his legal right to parenthood. (d) Direct the Child Welfare Committee (Respondent No.4) to conduct a comprehensive welfare assessment of the minor child and submit a detailed report before this Hon’ble Court regarding her safety, health, and overall well-being including mental wellness, which is likely to be adversely affected due to the illegal act of Respondent no.-5 and her parents in effecting forceful separation of petitioner from his daughter at a tender age of three and half years. ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 3 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the minor child having the age of 3 years 3 months (female child) has been detained by the respondent No.5, the mother, namely, Swadhinta Pal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition which, however, has been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Yashita Sahu vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors”. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made alternative prayer by filing one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 14135 of 2025 seeking therein a direction upon the Respondent No.5 to allow the writ petitioner to have the “contact rights” through video conferencing or video call in the light of the principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Yashita Sahu vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.” (supra). 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has submitted by referring the stand inter alia taken in the counter- affidavit on the issue of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of habeas corpus in the facts of the present case that the custody of minor female child of the age of 3 years 3 months is being sought for by the father. ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 4 6. It has been contended by taking aid of Section 13 (A) of the Guardianship and Wards Act that the welfare of the minor is a paramount consideration in handing over the custody. 7. However, he has also submitted that the respondent No.5 is acting in a very bona fide manner being conscious with the fact that the writ petitioner is the father of the minor child and as such she has never objected to have the contact through video conferencing or the video call and to that effect the specific statement has been made in paragraph 28 supported by the relevant documents as appended to the Annexure-8. 8. He has further submitted that the moment Interlocutory Application has been filed keeping the “contact rights” either through video conferencing or video call which itself clarifies that the writ petitioner himself is not pressing the prayer made in the writ petition otherwise, since, in the writ petition the prayer has been made alleging against the respondent No.5 of illegal detention of the female minor child. The moment, the prayer is being sought to be added in the main prayer made in the writ petition of having the “contact rights” either through video conferencing or video call the writ petitioner is also conscious of the issue of the welfare of the female minor child who is aged about only 3 years 3 months. 9. The learned Counsel has further submitted that, however, the copy of the Interlocutory Application which has been filed on ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 5 13.10.2025 has not been served to him, but even then, since the stand has already been taken in the counter-affidavit which has been filed prior to the filing of the Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.14135 of 2025 hence nothing remains to be decided in view of the bona fide having been shown by the respondent No.5 who is always ready to give “contact rights” whether through video conferencing or the video call. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 11. So far as the issue of maintainability as one of the bone of contentions is concerned, we are conscious that the writ petition on such issue is maintainable as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. vrs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors.” reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42. 12. We are also conscious as per the consideration made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. vrs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors.” (supra) that the welfare of minor child is paramount consideration as has been taken note in paragraph 26 of the said Judgment. 13. The claim of the petitioner, the father is to have the custodial right of the minor female child, aged about 3 years 3 months. The issue of welfare has also been mandated in the statute in the provision as contained in under Section 13 (A) of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1889. The aforesaid fact has been considered by the Hon’ble ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 6 Apex Court in the case of “Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. vrs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors.” 14. Herein the age of the minor child is 3 years 3 months only who is living with the mother, respondent No.5 since the birth, hence the consideration which is required of the welfare of the minor female child which is to be well taken care by the mother in comparison to that of the father. 15. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case where the custody is to be handed over in favour of the father by separating the minor female child of 3 years 3 months by handing over it to the father. The female child is to grow up and being the female child, she is at the appropriate age required to share so many things at the transitional phase of the age which cannot be fit to be disclosed to the father when the mother is alive and there the question of welfare comes into picture, particularly, for the female child. 16. The aforesaid fact has also been accepted by the writ petitioner, the moment he has filed an Interlocutory Application seeking the “contact rights” either through video conference or the video call as per the prayer made in the Interlocutory Application. The said Interlocutory Application although has not been allowed and today we are not intending to allow the same, since, even the copy thereof has not been supplied. Further reason of not allowing the said Interlocutory Application is that whatever the relief has been sought ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 7 for in the instant Interlocutory Application has already been responded by the respondent No.5 in the counter-affidavit, particularly, at paragraph 28 supported by the relevant document which is the audio click and the extract of the video conference which had been in between the writ petitioner and the minor child. This is being referred herein only for the reason that whatever prayer has been made by the writ petitioner in the main writ petition is just in conflict with the prayer made in the Interlocutory Application. 17. The writ petitioner has claimed the custody of the minor child by making prayer in the writ petition by giving a declaration of illegal detention of the minor child custody having with the mother, the respondent No.5. But while making prayer in the Interlocutory Application a complete contradictory prayer has been made to only have the “contact rights”. 18. The said Interlocutory Application does not say that such prayer is to be given by way of interim relief rather it is being sought for as would also be evident from the argument advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the “contact rights” either through video conference or the video call will be given then the purpose of filing of this writ petition will be suffice. 19. Since the statement has already been made in paragraph 28 of the counter-affidavit that prior to filing of the writ petition the access of having “contact rights” have been given and the same has been ( 2026:JHHC:5066-DB ) 8 substantiated by the photographs appended as Annexure-R-7. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.5, in course of argument, has also submitted that since she is conscious that the writ petitioner is the father of the minor child, therefore, she has taken efforts to provide access to have an opportunity to the writ petitioner to contact through her video conference or the video call. 20. This Court, therefore, taking into consideration that since the specific statement has been given in the counter-affidavit in regard to the prayer made by the writ petitioner in the Interlocutory Application regarding the “contact rights” either to be given by video conference or the video call, subject to suitability and convenience of the minor child, is of the view that there is no need to pass any direction. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 22. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 19th February, 2026 P.K.S./Suman