The Court found that the minor was being used as a 'pawn' in a matrimonial dispute and had been "heavily tutored" by the mother to make sexual abuse allegations against the father.

"After having interaction with the corpus, this Court is of the opinion that a lot of negative things has been tutored to the corpus and it is not good for her welfare if she remains with the respondent no.4…because if she continues to remain in her custody certainly she will be spoiled,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed.

The single judge was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father seeking the custody of his daughter from her mother, with whom he has serious matrimonial disputes and is no longer cohabiting.

The petitioner-father alleged that the custody of the minor with the wife/mother is not conducive to her mental and physical welfare, as she was being tutored and taught age-inappropriate, abusive, and sexual content beyond her understanding.

To ascertain the allegations, the bench interacted with the child and found that she expressed negative sentiments toward the petitioner and stated that she did not want to reside with him. She also alleged that her father had sexually abused her and assaulted her mother.

However, the bench observed that it was 'apparent' that she had been tutored by her mother because “the way she described the acts was beyond her age and logic,” and hence, no reliance could be placed on her allegations against the father.

Prioritizing the minor's mental health and welfare, the Court strongly criticized the mother's conduct as it opined thus:

“It is very much apparent that given tender age of the corpus, she should not be used as a pawn in the fight between the husband and wife but the respondent has used her as a pawn”.

Concluding that the minor's future was at grave risk, the bench observed thus:

"After having interaction with the corpus, this Court is of the opinion that a lot of negative things have been tutored to the corpus and it is not good for her welfare if she remains with the respondent no.4…because if she continues to remain in her custody, certainly she will be spoiled".

In view of this, the Court decided to temporarily transfer the child's custody to the petitioner until the next date of listing.

However, the mother has been granted permission to visit the father's house to meet the child and has also been allowed video-conferencing access, which the father is directed to facilitate.

Additionally, the State and police respondents were directed to ensure the safety and security of the father and the child to their desired destination.

The matter is listed for further hearing on August 17, 2026.

Advocates Devaang Savla and Utkarsh Srivastava appeared for the Father

Advocates Anju Shukla and Shailesh Pandey appeared for the Mother

Click Here To Read/download Order