Km. Istika (Minor Aged About 8 Years) And ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Musharraf Ali, Syed Mohd. Khalid

Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 53

HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Pushpa Johsi, Ms. Shyanki and Sri Manendra Singh on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6 is taken on record.

By order dated 27.04.2026, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were directed to produce the corpus, Km. Istika, before this Court. In compliance thereof, the private respondent No. 4, Smt. Shruti Mohta, who is the mother of the corpus, has duly produced her before this Court.

This Court interacted with the corpus, Km. Istika, aged about 8 years, a student of Class III in a school at Bareilly. During the course of interaction, the child made certain allegations to the effect that she, along with her mother, had been subjected to assault by the petitioner, Abhilash Mohta. She further alleged that she had also been assaulted by her grandmother, Smt. Indra Devi, as well as her paternal aunt (Bua), Smt. Sapna Jajoo. However, upon a careful and sensitive assessment of the demeanor and responses of the child, this Court is of the considered opinion that the corpus appears to be substantially tutored and is merely reiterating what has been inculcated in her by her mother, rather than expressing her independent volition.

This Court also interacted with Smt. Indra Devi, the paternal grandmother, and Smt. Sapna Jajoo, the paternal aunt of the corpus. They expressed their earnest desire to have the custody of the child during the vacation period, submitting that they had previously been entrusted with her care two years prior. Their conduct, demeanor, and interaction with the child unmistakably reflect a deep emotional bond and genuine affection towards the corpus. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that Smt. Sapna Jajoo is running an educational institution at Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, imparting education up to Class XII to approximately 700 students. She has assured this Court that during the summer vacation and other holidays, the safety, well-being, and holistic development of the corpus shall be duly safeguarded. It has also been stated that the father of the corpus, Abhilash Mohta, shall reside with the child during such vacation periods, thereby facilitating the strengthening of emotional ties between the corpus and her paternal family.

It is a well-settled principle that a minor child requires the love, care, and emotional support of both parents for her balanced and wholesome development. Depriving the corpus of the company and affection of her father would not be conducive to her overall growth and future well-being.

This Court further interacted with the private respondent No. 4, Smt. Shruti Mohta, who candidly admitted that her marriage with the petitioner, Abhilash Mohta, stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 10.03.2026, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is also evident that prior to the said dissolution, a settlement was arrived at between the parties before the High Court Mediation Centre on 09.07.2025. However, it is equally apparent that the issue relating to the custody of the minor child was not conclusively determined in the said settlement.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has drawn attention to the judgment dated 10.03.2026 passed by the Family Court, wherein it has been observed that the petitioner, Abhilash Mohta, had agreed that the minor would remain in the custody of her mother. However, such an observation cannot be construed to mean that the father is divested of his natural right to access, companionship, and temporary custody of his minor daughter, particularly during vacation periods. It is reiterated that maintaining a meaningful and affectionate relationship with both parents is indispensable for the emotional stability and personality development of the child.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and bearing in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the petitioner, Abhilash Mohta, shall be entitled to meet the corpus and also have her company during school vacations and holidays. The petitioner may take the corpus, Km. Istika, with him during such vacation periods, upon prior intimation to the respondent No. 4, Smt. Shruti Mohta. Upon conclusion of the vacation, the corpus shall be duly returned to the custody of her mother.

It is further directed that the petitioner and his family members shall be at liberty to ascertain the schedule of school vacations from the respondent No. 4 and, after due intimation, may take temporary custody of the corpus for the said period. Both parties are also directed to ensure that when the corpus remains in the custody of one parent, the other parent shall have reasonable access to the child and shall be permitted to interact with her through telephone, mobile, or internet-based communication. No obstruction or impediment shall be created by either party in facilitating such interaction.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present habeas corpus petition stands finally disposed of.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Himanshu