The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered immediate restoration of custody of a seven-year-old girl to her mother, holding that the father could not retain custody without a court order. The Court noted the child’s wish to live with her mother.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the immediate restoration of custody of a seven-year-old girl to her mother. The Court held that the father could not continue to keep the child with him in the absence of any court order granting him custody, especially when the child herself clearly stated that she wished to live with her mother. The direction was issued by a Division Bench comprising Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother for production and custody of her minor daughter.
The Bench ordered that the State authorities hand over the child to the mother on the same day, and allowed the mother to take the child with her.
According to the petition, the minor girl had been living with her mother since birth and had never lived with her father (respondent No. 4). The mother alleged that on May 27, 2026, the father visited her residence in Jabalpur and the next day took the child with him on the pretext of spending time with her. She further claimed that the father assured her the child would be returned shortly, but later refused to do so and retained the child.
When the matter came up before the Court, the father represented by Advocate Hemant Namdeo did not dispute that the child had lived with her mother throughout her life. He also accepted that there was no judicial order granting him custody. However, he argued that the child had willingly accompanied him to visit her grandmother and that there was no force or abduction.
After the State produced the child before the Bench, the Court interacted with the seven-year-old. During this interaction, the child unequivocally stated that she wished to reside with her mother and did not want to stay with her father.
Based on the child’s statement, the Court concluded that the father’s continued custody could not be treated as lawful. The Bench noted that even if the father’s version was accepted i.e., that the child had accompanied him voluntarily the lack of any legal authority or custody order meant that he could not keep the child against the wishes of the child and the existing arrangement.
In its reasoning, the Court recorded:
“The corpus is seven years of age and has unequivocally stated that she wishes to reside with her mother and does not wish to reside with respondent No.4.”
The Bench also observed,
“Even if the explanation of respondent No.4 is considered then also it cannot be said that he has obtained the custody of corpus legally which hence cannot be permitted to continue.”
Accordingly, the Bench directed State counsel, Advocate Ajay Ojha, to ensure that custody of the child was handed over to the petitioner mother. At the same time, the Court ordered measures to safeguard the father’s interests by directing that the mother ensure communication between the father and the child whenever the father wished to speak. The Court observed that the mother “shall ensure that the corpus speaks to respondent No.4 whenever he wishes to.”
While disposing of the petition, the Bench clarified that the father would remain free to pursue whatever legal remedies are available under law regarding custody and guardianship of the child.
The petitioner mother was represented by Advocate Shashwat Awasthi, respondent No. 4 by Advocate Hemant Namdeo, and the State by Government Advocate Ajay Ojha.
Case Title: Priyanka Shrivastav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE