HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1356 of 2026 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. By order dated 16th September, 2026, the State was directed to produce the minor corpus, Mishti, before this Court. In compliance with the said order, the corpus has been produced by Sub-Inspector Manendra Kumar (P.N.O. 234221035), Head Constable Jatin Kumar (P.N.O. 252292938) and Lady Constable Neha Rajput (P.N.O. 252295373), Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. 2. This Court could not have a meaningful interaction with the minor corpus, Mishti, who is aged about two and a half years, owing to her tender age. However, from her demeanour and conduct, it was apparent that she was comfortable in the company of respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, whom she appears to regard as her mother, and respondent No. 7, Deepak, the husband of respondent No. 5. 3. The Court interacted with the petitioner, Smt. Saroj. She disclosed that she and her husband, Parvesh @ Bhola, had given the minor corpus in adoption to respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, and respondent No. 6, Sachinder Singh, and an adoption deed was also executed in that regard. She further disclosed that, subsequently, Ayesha Singh left Sachinder Singh and solemnized marriage with respondent No. 7, Deepak. She submitted that she had not given the minor corpus in adoption to Ayesha Singh and Deepak and, therefore, she now seeks custody of the minor corpus. 4. The Court thereafter interacted with respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, who disclosed that the minor corpus had been given in adoption to her and her then husband, Sachinder Singh, as the petitioner was unable to maintain the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kuldeep Mishra, Maksood Ahmad, Mohd. Afzal Ansari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt Saroj And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) corpus on account of her poor financial condition. She further disclosed that, at that time, the petitioner had three children, namely, Sagar, aged about 18 years, Mahak, aged about 15 years, and the minor corpus, Mishti. Since the petitioner was unable to maintain her children due to poverty, the custody of Mishti was given to her and her then husband, Sachinder Singh. 5. Respondent No. 5 further disclosed that she was subsequently deserted by Sachinder Singh and thereafter solemnized marriage with respondent No. 7, Deepak, with whom she is presently residing. She has also produced before the Court the adoption deed dated 13.09.2024, stated to have been executed between herself and the petitioner. She claimed that she has been taking care of the minor corpus for the last about two years and that the corpus has been residing with her throughout this period. She, therefore, submitted that she may be permitted to retain the custody of the minor corpus. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adoption deed produced by respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, is merely a notarized document and has not been registered. It is, therefore, submitted that the said document is not admissible in evidence and that no legal right in respect of the custody of the minor corpus can be claimed by respondent No. 5 on the basis of such an unregistered adoption deed. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 316 of 2025, Arun and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2025 (10) ADJ 543. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being the biological mother of the minor corpus, is entitled to her custody. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 7 submits that the validity of the adoption deed is not required to be finally adjudicated upon in the present proceedings and that the paramount consideration before this Court, while considering the custody of a minor, is the welfare and best interest of the child. He submits that the petitioner is a poor woman and does not possess sufficient financial resources to maintain the minor corpus and that it was for this reason that the corpus was given in adoption to respondent No. 5. 8. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 5 has been taking care of the minor corpus for the last about two years and that the corpus has developed a strong emotional bond with her, having been brought up by her as her mother. It is submitted that if the custody of the minor corpus is HABC No. 1356 of 2026 2 abruptly transferred to the petitioner at this stage, the same may cause emotional distress to the minor and may not be conducive to her overall welfare. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5, along with respondent No. 7, is taking proper care of the corpus and is financially capable of providing her with a secure and stable environment. It is, therefore, submitted that, keeping in view the paramount welfare of the minor corpus, her custody ought not to be transferred to the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant habeas corpus petition. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the biological mother of the minor corpus, Mishti, who is aged about two and a half years. It is also admitted by the petitioner that she had earlier entrusted the custody of the corpus to respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, and respondent No. 6, Sachinder Singh. Her present claim for custody is primarily based upon the subsequent separation of respondent No. 5 from Sachinder Singh and her marriage with respondent No. 7, Deepak. 11. From the material placed on record, including the adoption deed produced before the Court, it appears that the petitioner has three children from her wedlock with Parvesh @ Bhola and that, at the relevant time, she was facing financial hardship and was unable to adequately maintain her children. It is in this background that the custody of the minor corpus was entrusted to respondent No. 5 and her then husband. 12. The matter was also considered by the Child Welfare Committee, District Ghaziabad. The counselling report dated 11.09.2026, placed before the Court, records that the petitioner and her husband, Parvesh @ Bhola, are financially poor and are unable to adequately maintain their children, whereas respondent No. 5, Ayesha Singh, and respondent No. 7, Deepak, possess sufficient financial capacity to maintain the minor corpus. The report further records that the minor corpus has developed sufficient emotional bonding with respondent No. 5. After considering the circumstances, the Child Welfare Committee declined to hand over the custody of the minor corpus to the petitioner. 13. So far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the validity and admissibility of the adoption deed is concerned, this Court does not consider it necessary, in the present habeas corpus HABC No. 1356 of 2026 3 proceedings, to finally adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of the said document. Any dispute regarding the legal validity, effect or enforceability of the alleged adoption deed may appropriately be adjudicated upon by the competent forum in appropriate proceedings. For the purposes of the present proceedings, this Court is primarily concerned with the question as to what arrangement would presently serve the paramount welfare and best interest of the minor corpus. 14. In matters concerning the custody of a minor, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. The fact that the petitioner is the biological mother of the corpus is undoubtedly a relevant consideration; however, the claim of custody cannot be determined solely on that basis, particularly when the Court is required to consider the overall welfare and best interest of the minor. 15. In the present case, the minor corpus is aged about two and a half years and has been continuously residing with respondent No. 5 for the last about two years. From her demeanour and conduct before the Court, it was apparent that she was comfortable in the company of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 7. The material placed before the Court further indicates that the corpus has developed emotional bonding with respondent No. 5. The report of the Child Welfare Committee also supports the continuance of the present arrangement. The financial circumstances of the petitioner, as noticed in the aforesaid report, and the circumstances in which respondent Nos. 5 and 7 are presently maintaining the minor corpus are also relevant considerations. 16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that an abrupt change in the custody of the minor corpus at this stage may not be conducive to her overall welfare and may cause disruption in the stable environment in which she has been residing for a considerable period. The petitioner had also earlier voluntarily entrusted the custody of the minor corpus to respondent No. 5. Having regard to the tender age of the corpus, her existing emotional bond with respondent No. 5, the period for which she has remained in her care, the financial circumstances of the petitioner, and the report of the Child Welfare Committee, this Court is not inclined to direct transfer of the custody of the minor corpus to the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for handing over the custody of the minor corpus, Mishti, to her is declined. HABC No. 1356 of 2026 4 18. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is the biological mother of the minor corpus, it would be appropriate to preserve and facilitate the bond between the mother and the child. The petitioner shall, therefore, be entitled to visitation and interaction with the minor corpus in the following manner: (i) The petitioner shall be permitted to meet the minor corpus at Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, on every Sunday between 2:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 shall ensure that the petitioner is permitted to meet and interact with the corpus during the aforesaid period. (ii) The petitioner shall also be permitted to interact with the minor corpus through video conferencing every day between 6:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 shall extend necessary cooperation to facilitate such interaction. 19. It is clarified that the aforesaid arrangement shall not prejudice the rights of either party before the competent forum in any proceedings concerning the legal status, validity or effect of the adoption deed. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant habeas corpus petition is disposed of. October 1, 2026 Mayank HABC No. 1356 of 2026 5 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad