Satya Sinha vs Vivek Sinha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.839 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010662372026
======================================================
Satya Sinha Wife of Anil Kumar Sinha Resident of Flat No.- 401, Yogendra
Parvati Enclave, 36, Kidwaipuri, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Patna, Pin
Code- 800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Vivek Sinha Son of Late Sudhir Kumar Sinha Resident of Sinha Kutir, Road
No.- 10, Ashok Nagar, Kankarbagh, Police Station- Kankarbagh, District-
Patna, Pin Code- 800020.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand, Adv.
Ms. Shristi Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 05-11-2026

The instant petition is filed against the order
dated 20.06.2026, passed in Guardianship Case No. 51 of
2025 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Patna whereby he has directed the petitioner to
handover the custody of minor child to the respondent by
simply holding that since there is no material indicating
unfitness of the father, the claim of natural parent cannot

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
2/10
be ignored without considering the important aspect of
paramount consideration of the welfare of the child.
2. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of both the parties.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the petitioner's daughter,
Radhika Sinha, was married to the respondent in the year
2020 and a child, namely, Anay Sinha was born from the
wedlock. It is further submitted that after the marriage,
she was continuously subjected to torture and harassment
on account of demands for dowry. It is alleged that the
respondent is a greedy and cunning person who was
demanding two flats as dowry. It is further submitted that,
on the morning of 25.06.2025, Radhika was allegedly
given a Salphas tablet on the pretext that it was a
medicine for curing migraine associated with acute
headache. After consuming the said tablet, Radhika died
during the course of treatment on 03.06.2025 at Vedanta
Hospital, New Delhi, Gurugram. Subsequently, the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
3/10
petitioner's husband, Anil Kumar Sinha, got an FIR
registered on 09.07.2025, alleging that his daughter,
Radhika Sinha, had died under suspicious circumstances at
the respondent's house after being administered Salphas.
It is further submitted that the life and welfare of the
minor child, Anay Sinha, aged about four years, are in
danger at the hands of the respondent. Accordingly, in
order to protect the life and welfare of the minor child, the
petitioner instituted Guardianship Case No. 51 of 2025
seeking his custody. It is further submitted that, upon
receipt of summons in the aforesaid guardianship case, the
respondent appeared and filed an application dated
17.10.2025, pursuant to which visitation rights were
granted to him. Subsequently, during the pendency of
Guardianship Case No. 51 of 2025, the respondent filed
another application dated 16.01.2026, seeking interim
custody of the minor child, Anay Sinha. The said
application was allowed, in favour of respondent, by the
learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna,

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
4/10
vide order dated 20.06.2026, which is under challenge
before this Court.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that impugned order is not proper,
just and legal because the interest and welfare of minor
child Anay Sinha is not protected in the custody of
respondent whereas the court has to protect the interest of
minor child.
5. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent submits that the entire facts of
this case has been considered by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court in the impugned order and welfare of
the child has been fully appreciated and examined by the
learned trial court and there is no illegality and impropriety
in the impugned order. Hence the present civil
miscellaneous application is fit to be dismissed.
6. It is well settled law that for grant of interim
custody of a minor child in a case, paramount
consideration for the court is to examine the welfare of the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
5/10
child. Respondent is natural guardian being the father of
the minor son, whereas petitioner is maternal grandmother
and there is no allegation against the father that he is
lacking love and affection and there is any ill will towards
his minor son. One of the natural guardian that is mother
has already died. So the child cannot be deprived from the
love and affection of other natural guardian, that is father,
who is respondent himself.
7. After going through the impugned order dated
20-06-26, it appears that minor child has been interacted
by the court in chambers itself. Learned trial court after
hearing both the parties has held that :-
“10. At this stage, the Court cannot
proceed on the basis of mere allegations. The
presumption of innocence operates in favour of
the applicant unless and until competent
proceedings establish otherwise. Therefore, the
allegation regarding the death of the child’s
mother, by itself, cannot be treated as a
conclusive circumstance disentitling the applicant
from custody.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
6/10
11. The record reveals that minor son
namely Anay Sinha is living with maternal
grandmother and he is in her custody. Admittedly,
the mother of the child has already been died and
before the death of Radhikha Sinha, the child was
living with his parents. The child minor son was
produced before the court ans was interacted in
chambers in a congenial atmosphere. The child is
aged about 5 years and does not possess sufficient
maturity and understanding to express her wishes
intelligently.
12. The Court is conscious of the fact
that the petitioner – maternal grandmother has
been taking care of the child after the death of the
child’s mother and undoubtedly shares deep
emotional bonds with the child. Such relationship
is valuable for the emotional development of the
child and deserves to be preserved.
13. It is settled principle of law that
while deciding matters relating to custody and
visitation, the paramount consideration is the
welfare and best interest of the child and not the
legal rights of the parents.
14. However, at the stage of interim
custody, and in the absence of any material
indicating unfitness of the father, the claim of the
natural parent cannot be ignored. The welfare of

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
7/10
the child would ordinarily be served by being
brought up under the care and guidance of the
surviving parent, subject to the ultimate
adjudication of the guardianship petition. At the
same time, the child should not be deprived of the
affection, love and companionship of the maternal
grandmother. The child’s continued interaction
with the maternal family is necessary for
maintaining emotional stability and familial bonds.
15. Having regard to the age of the
child, the relationship of the parties with the child,
and the material available on record, this Court is
of the considered view that the welfare of the child
would presently be served by granting interim
custody to the father with reasonable visitation
rights to the maternal grandmother.”

The learned trial court has also given following
direction to the parties :-
“1. Interim physical custody of the minor
child shall remain with the father until final
adjudication of the custody proceedings.
2. The maternal grandmother shall have
visitation rights every Saturday and Sunday from
10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. at the residence of
maternal grandmother so that the child can meet

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
8/10
Divyanshi (Cousin) subject to school routine and
wish of the child.
3. The father shall not obstruct
telephonic or video interaction between the
maternal grandmother and the child and also with
Divyanshi for reasonable durations on daily basis.
4. Neither party shall attempt to alienate
the child from the other or make adverse
comments about the other party in the presence of
the child.
5. The father is directed to continue his
education in Birla Open Mind School (junior wings)
until further order of the Court as transfer of
school continuously is likely to affect his study and
emotional arrangements.”
8. During course of argument, the judgment
earlier passed by Patna High Court in the case of Bimla
Devi versus Subhash Chandra Yadav ‘Nirala’ , reported
in 1990 SCC Online Pat 253 and another judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Anjali
Kapoor versus Rajiv Baijal , reported in (2009) 7 SCC
322 , was also relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
held in Anjali Kapoor versus Rajiv Baijal case :-

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
9/10
“ 15. Under the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, the father is the guardian of the minor
child until he is found unfit to be the guardian of
the minor female child. In deciding such questions,
the welfare of the minor child is the paramount
consideration and such a question cannot be
decided merely based upon the rights of the
parties under the law.”
9. During course of argument, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits
that criminal proceeding alleged against him i.e.
respondent for administering poison has been disbelieved
and final form has been submitted on 18-12-25 and the
court has accepted the final form. There is no rebuttal on
behalf of the petitioner regarding the aforesaid facts.
Moreover, the court has to see the welfare of the child
during grant of interim custody of a child and this aspect
has been fully considered and examined by the trial court
in the impugned order. So there is no illegality and
impropriety in the impugned order.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.839 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
10/10
10. Hence, the Impugned Order is upheld and
instant civil miscellaneous stands dismissed. The directions
given by the trial court in para 19 of the impugned order
shall be followed by both the parties.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Nirajkrs/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 17.08.2026
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date