Rudra Parashar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 801 of 2026

Rudra Parashar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Fahim Ahmed
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Subir Lal
A.F.R.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. Compliance affidavits filed by the learned counsel for both the parties in
Court today are taken on record.
2. By order dated 10.07.2026, the petitioner, Smt. Garima Sharma, and
respondent no.4, Akash Sharma, were directed to remain personally present
before this Court along with the minor corpus, Rudra Parashar. In
compliance with the aforesaid order, both the parties, along with the minor
corpus, are present before this Court.
3. This Court interacted with respondent no.4, Akash Sharma, who disclosed
that he is employed with the World Bank at Delhi and is earning
approximately Rs.4.5 lakhs per month. He further stated that he has admitted
the minor corpus to a school at Faridabad, where he is presently pursuing his
education. He further submitted that the minor corpus was taken from his
custody at Faridabad and, therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the present habeas corpus petition. He also submitted
that the petitioner is employed in Mumbai and, being a working woman,
would not be in a position to personally look after the minor corpus.
Accordingly, he contended that the custody of the minor corpus ought not to
be handed over to the petitioner.
4. This Court also interacted with the petitioner, Smt. Garima Sharma, who
disclosed that till April, 2026, the minor corpus had been residing with her.
She further stated that she had admitted the minor corpus to a school at

HABC No. 801 of 2026
2
Ghaziabad, from where respondent no.4 allegedly took the corpus into his
custody without her knowledge or consent. She submitted that, being the
mother of the minor corpus and the corpus being below five years of age,
she is entitled to his custody. She further disclosed that she is working as an
Environmental Engineer in Mumbai and is earning approximately
Rs.80,000/- per month. She also stated that during her working hours, the
minor corpus would be looked after by her parents, who are willing to reside
with her at Mumbai for that purpose.
5. This Court also interacted with the minor corpus, Rudra Parashar, aged
about 3½ years, with a view to ascertaining his upbringing, emotional
attachment, and recognition of the parties. During the interaction, the corpus
recognized both his mother and his father. He also indicated that his mother
takes good care of him and expressed his inclination to reside with her.
6. The petitioner was also directed to take the minor corpus in her lap, and
she duly complied with the said direction. During the interaction, it became
evident that the minor corpus shared a strong emotional bond with the
petitioner. The corpus remained comfortable and at ease in her company,
freely interacted with her, and exhibited a clear sense of security and
affection towards her. Although the corpus, being only about 3½ years of
age, is too young to express an independent and informed preference
regarding his custody, this Court interacted with him solely for the limited
purpose of assessing his emotional attachment and comfort level with the
parties. From the interaction so held, this Court is of the prima facie opinion
that the minor corpus is emotionally attached to and feels secure and
comfortable in the company of his mother.
7. It is also apparent from the material brought on record that the minor
corpus had been admitted to a school at Ghaziabad and that the petitioner's
parents are available to look after the minor corpus during the petitioner's
working hours.
8. A significant issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has
been raised by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent no.4, which has been contested by Sri P.K. Jain, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

HABC No. 801 of 2026
3
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that the
minor corpus was in the custody of respondent no.4 at Faridabad and,
therefore, the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court. It was accordingly contended that this Court lacks the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present habeas corpus
petition.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the treatment records, school admission documents and fee receipts of
the minor corpus have been brought on record, which clearly establish that
the corpus had been residing at Ghaziabad and was admitted to a school
there. He further submitted that both the petitioner and respondent no.4 were
called to Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, on 15.05.2026,
where, with the intervention of the police authorities, a compromise was
arrived at between the parties. Under the said compromise, it was agreed that
the custody of the minor corpus would remain alternately with each parent
for a period of one month. However, the respondent no.4 failed to abide by
the terms of the said compromise. He further submitted that a copy of the
compromise recorded at the police station has been annexed to the writ
petition, wherein respondent no.4 expressly acknowledged that the minor
corpus had been in his custody since 03.04.2026. According to the learned
Senior Counsel, this admission itself establishes that, prior to the said date,
the custody of the minor corpus was with the petitioner.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
aforesaid admission made by respondent no.4 clearly establishes that the
minor corpus was forcibly taken away from the custody of the petitioner at
Ghaziabad. He contended that the cause of action, therefore, arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, conferring jurisdiction upon this Court to
entertain and adjudicate the present habeas corpus petition. In support of his
submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and
Others, (2014) 9 SCC 329 .
12. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and
have also interacted with the parties as well as the minor corpus for the
purpose of ascertaining in whose custody the welfare and best interests of

HABC No. 801 of 2026
4
the minor corpus would be best secured.
13. From the documents annexed to the writ petition, it is apparent that the
minor corpus had been admitted to a school at Ghaziabad and that the school
fees were being paid by the petitioner. It is also evident that a dispute arose
between the petitioner and respondent no.4 regarding the custody of the
minor corpus. In this regard, both the parties appeared before Police Station
Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, on 15.05.2026, where respondent no.4
made a statement admitting that the minor corpus had been in his custody
since 03.04.2026. During the said proceedings before the police authorities,
a compromise was arrived at between the parties, whereby it was agreed
that, after a period of five days, the custody of the minor corpus would
remain with the petitioner for one month and thereafter with respondent no.4
for the succeeding one month, on an alternating basis, until the issue of
custody was finally adjudicated by a competent court.
14. From the material brought on record, it is apparent that the minor corpus
had been residing with the petitioner and was taken away by respondent no.4
from Ghaziabad on 03.04.2026. Thus, a part of the cause of action has
undeniably arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this
Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present
habeas corpus petition.
15. It is further apparent that the minor corpus is only about 3½ years of age.
Under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the
custody of a minor who has not attained the age of five years ordinarily rests
with the mother, unless there exist circumstances disentitling her from such
custody. No material has been brought on record, nor has any circumstance
been pointed out before this Court, which would disentitle the petitioner
from having the custody of the minor corpus.
16. During the course of interaction, the minor corpus also expressed his
inclination to reside with his mother. Although, considering his tender age,
such preference cannot be treated as determinative, his conduct and
demeanour before this Court clearly reflected that he is emotionally attached
to, and feels secure and comfortable in the company of, his mother. This
circumstance, coupled with the statutory presumption under Section 6(a) of

HABC No. 801 of 2026
5
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, persuades this Court to
hold that the welfare of the minor corpus would presently be best served in
the custody of the petitioner. The corpus was very comfortable in the
company of the petitioner and was having great emotional bonding with her,
as such, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the company of the minor
corpus.
17. It is also apparent that the petitioner is financially capable of taking good
care of the corpus because she is educated and she is also supported by her
parents and this Court is not under any apprehension that she will not ensure
the welfare of the minor corpus.
18. This Court also tried its best to have a reconciliation between the
spouses, but unfortunately this Court could not succeed in persuading them
to reside together in order to ensure the paramount welfare of the minor
corpus.
19. In view of the above circumstances, the custody of the minor corpus is
forthwith handed to the petitioner Smt. Garima Sharma, who is her mother.
In order to maintain the emotional bonding between the respondent and the
corpus, the respondent no.4, Akash Sharma is granted visitation rights. He
can visit the corpus as and when he desires after prior information to the
petitioner at the residence of the petitioner. The respondent can also have
interaction through video conferencing with the corpus as and when he
desires, after the corpus returns from the school. The petitioner has assured
that she will not create any obstruction or hindrance in such meeting or
interaction. During school vacation, the respondent will be entitled to claim
the custody of the minor corpus from the petitioner and after efflux of
vacation, the respondent has assured that he will restore the custody of the
corpus to the petitioner. The parties are restrained from taking out the
corpus, outside India.
20. Subject to the above, this instant habeas corpus petition is disposed of .
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
July 21, 2026
Mayank
Digitally signed by :-
MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad