In a sensitive child custody matter, the Allahabad High Court has ruled in favour of a father seeking custody of his infant son after the mother’s demise. The Court emphasised that, in such cases, the welfare of the child remains the top priority and ordinarily aligns with the natural guardian.
Background of the Case
The habeas corpus petition was filed by Vipin Kumar Pandey, seeking custody of his minor son, Akshit Pandey, who had been living with his maternal aunt and uncle since the death of his mother in February 2025.
The petitioner argued that as the biological father, he is the natural and legal guardian and is capable of raising the child. He also assured the Court of proper care, highlighting his stable financial condition and family support, particularly from his sister who lives nearby.
On the other hand, the child’s maternal relatives opposed the plea. They contended that the child, being born prematurely and still very young, required special care, which they claimed to be providing. Concerns were also raised regarding the circumstances surrounding the mother’s death during an IVF procedure.
Justice Sandeep Jain carefully examined the facts and legal principles governing child custody. The Court referred to precedents of the Supreme Court, reiterating that in habeas corpus petitions involving minors, the focus is not merely legal rights but the welfare of the child.
“The paramount consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child,” the bench observed during the hearing.
The Court noted that no criminal case was pending against the father and rejected the argument that the mother’s death during an IVF procedure could be attributed to him. It held that such circumstances alone cannot disqualify a father from claiming custody.
Importantly, the Court observed that after the death of the mother, the father becomes the natural guardian and is ordinarily the most suitable person to ensure the child’s upbringing unless proven otherwise.
The bench further pointed out that there was no evidence suggesting that the father was unfit. Instead, the material on record showed that he had sufficient financial stability, a supportive environment, and family assistance for raising the child.
It also expressed concern that if custody was not granted at this early stage, the child might grow up without forming an emotional bond with his father, which could harm the child’s development.
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the maternal relatives to hand over custody of the minor to the father immediately in Court.
At the same time, to maintain the child’s connection with the maternal side, the Court granted visitation rights. The relatives were permitted to visit the child every Sunday for two hours at the father’s residence.
“The petitioner shall extend full cooperation and not obstruct visitation,” the Court stated, adding that the relatives may approach the Court again if they notice any issue affecting the child’s welfare.
With these directions, the habeas corpus petition was allowed, and custody was formally handed over to the father.
Case Details:
Case Title: Akshit Pandey (Minor) and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 365 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sandeep Jain
Decision Date: April 21, 2026
