Father Cannot Retain Child’s Custody Without Court Order: MP High Court Restores 7-Year-Old Girl To Mother

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the immediate restoration of custody of a seven-year-old girl to her mother, holding that the father could not continue to keep the child with him when there was no court order granting him custody and the child herself expressed a clear wish to reside with her mother.

A Division Bench of Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother seeking production and custody of her minor daughter. The Court directed the State authorities to hand over the child to the mother during the course of the day and permitted the mother to take the child with her.

According to the petition, the minor daughter had been residing with her mother since birth and had never lived with her father, respondent No. 4. The mother alleged that on May 27, 2026, the father visited her residence in Jabalpur and the following day took the child with him on the pretext of spending time with her. She claimed that he assured her the child would be returned shortly but later refused to do so and continued to keep the child in his custody.

Appearing before the Court along with his counsel, Advocate Hemant Namdeo, the father did not dispute that the child had been living with the mother throughout her life. He also conceded that there was no judicial order granting custody of the child to him. However, he argued that the child had willingly accompanied him to visit her grandmother and that there was no force or abduction involved.

The Bench examined the child after she was produced before the Court by the State authorities. During the interaction, the seven-year-old unequivocally conveyed that she wished to live with her mother and did not want to stay with her father.

Taking note of the child’s statement, the Court found that the father’s continued custody could not be treated as lawful. The Bench observed that even if the father’s version was accepted and the child had voluntarily accompanied him, the absence of any legal authority or custody order in his favour prevented him from retaining custody against the wishes of the child and the existing custodial arrangement.

Recording its findings, the Court observed, “The corpus is seven years of age and has unequivocally stated that she wishes to reside with her mother and does not wish to reside with respondent No.4.”

The Bench further held, “Even if the explanation of respondent No.4 is considered then also it cannot be said that he has obtained the custody of corpus legally which hence cannot be permitted to continue.”

Consequently, the Court directed the State counsel, Advocate Ajay Ojha, to ensure that custody of the child was handed over to the petitioner mother. At the same time, the Bench sought to protect the father’s interests by directing the mother to facilitate communication between the child and her father whenever he wished to speak to her.

The Court observed that the mother “shall ensure that the corpus speaks to respondent No.4 whenever he wishes to.”

While disposing of the petition, the Bench also clarified that the father would remain free to pursue any legal remedies available under law concerning custody and guardianship of the child.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shashwat Awasthi, while respondent No.4 was represented by Advocate Hemant Namdeo. The State was represented by Government Advocate Ajay Ojha.

Case Title: Priyanka Shrivastav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: June 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai