MP High Court Allows Minor Girl To Live With Father Facing POCSO Charges After She Claims He Was Falsely Implicated

Update: 2026-07-13 06:15 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted a minor girl to live with her father and elder sister, after noting that the daughter in her statement had said that he was falsely accused of sexually harassing her at the instance of her mother. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 266]The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea by the girl's elder sister (petitioner no 1) and father (petitioner no 2), claiming that...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted a minor girl to live with her father and elder sister, after noting that the daughter in her statement had said that he was falsely accused of sexually harassing her at the instance of her mother. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 266]

The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea by the girl's elder sister (petitioner no 1) and father (petitioner no 2), claiming that the girl–who was living with them–was illegally taken by the District Child Protection Officer and the President, Child Development Committee (respondents no 3 and 4). The petition claimed that the girl was taken from their home on a complaint by the mother.

The division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi noted an FIR was lodged against the father at the instance of the mother, alleging sexual harassment of his own daughters, including the minor girl (corpus) and her sister-petitioner no.1. The bench noted that the minor girl as well her sister, had been cross examined in the trial Court and had not supported the case of the prosecution.

After interacting with the minor girl, the court said:

"The corpus has unequivocally and in no unclear words has expressed her desire to reside with her sister and father. According to the corpus, her father has been falsely implicated in the case of sexual harassment at the instance of her mother. She has also stated that her father has never ill-treated her in any manner and in fact is looking after of her needs including her study in a reputed private institute as she is also preparing for JEE".

Meanwhile the elder sister said that she is a B.Tech and was working and that her father has always treated her and her minor sister with care and affection, and that she and her sister were coerced to make false allegations of sexual harassment by their mother.

The minor girl who was lodged in a shelter home, told the court that she wanted to live with her father and elder sister. She has also stated that she has already lost precious time to prepare for her forthcoming examinations only due to the matrimonial dispute between her parents.

"In view of the aforesaid, when both the daughters of the petitioner no.2 are well informed, carrier oriented and are capable of taking their own decision, and the fact that the petitioner No.1 is already residing with her father/petitioner No.2 despite giving a statement against him in the trial Court, and same is the situation with the corpus who also wants to reside with the petitioners and not with her mother, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that petitioners have made out a case for interference.

Thus, in the best interest of the corpus, we direct that the custody of the corpus be handed over to the petitioners, who are also directed to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the corpus and the corpus shall always be free to lodge her protest in case of any complaint against her father. For this purpose, a mobile phone shall also be provided to the corpus by the petitioners, and the mobile phone number of the concerned SHO of the police station shall also be given to the corpus, the concerned SHO shall also ensure to attend the phone call of the corpus at any hour of the day'. 

A criminal case was registered against the father for use of criminal force with a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty (Section 354), criminal intimidation (Section 506) of IPC with aggravated sexual assault (Section 9 and 10) under POCSO Act. 

The criminal case was registered at the instance of the mother (respondent no 5), wherein she claimed that the father sexually harassed their daughters. 

The petitioner was allowed and disposed of. 

Case Title: S v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-20029-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 266

For Petitioner: Advocate Prateek Maheshwari

For State: Additional Advocate General Sonal Gupta with Advocate Charul Tiwari

For Mother: Advocate Anita Singh

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags:    

Similar News