Minor's Desire To Live With Father Firm, MP High Court Restored Custody Despite Pending POCSO Trial

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench has directed that a 14-year-old girl, lodged in a shelter home after a complaint by her mother, be handed over to her father and elder sister, holding that the minor had "unequivocally and in no unclear words" expressed her desire to live with them.

A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition under Article 226, filed by the father and elder sister seeking her release from Jeevan Jyoti Ashram, where she had been placed by the District Child Protection Officer and the President of the Child Development Committee, Indore.

The girl, referred to in the order as "the corpus," had allegedly been taken from her father's custody at the instance of her mother, arrayed as respondent no.5. The dispute traces to 2021, when a case was registered against the father at Police Station Lasudiya, Indore, under Sections 354, 506 IPC read with Sections 9(M) and 10 of the POCSO Act, on the mother's complaint alleging sexual harassment of his daughters.

The Court noted that both daughters, on being cross-examined in the trial, "have not supported the case of the prosecution." The minor had then gone back to live with her father, only to be taken into custody again by the Child Development Committee at the mother's instance, prompting the present petition.

Advocate Prateek Maheshwari, for the petitioners, relied on the trial court record to argue that the girl had been forced to reside with her mother and coerced into a false statement against her father owing to matrimonial discord. He submitted that keeping the corpus in a shelter home against her wishes was costing her valuable time ahead of the IIT entrance examination.

The plea was opposed by counsel for the mother, who pointed to statements recorded by both daughters during the father's trial, where serious allegations had been levelled against him, arguing that no case for interference was made out.

To understand the "mindset of the corpus," the Bench interacted directly with the minor, her elder sister, and their mother. The girl was firm that her father had been "falsely implicated" at her mother's instance and had "never ill-treated her in any manner," and was supporting her studies at a private institute where she was preparing for JEE. Her elder sister, now a working B.Tech graduate, said their father had "always treated her and her sister with care and affection," and that both had been coerced by their mother into false allegations.

The Court noted that on June 22, 2026, the girl had been directed to continue at the Ashram for fifteen more days so she was not "influenced by either of her parents." When brought back, she remained "firm in her opinion that she wants to accompany the petitioners," adding that she had already lost precious preparation time owing to her parents' matrimonial dispute.

Holding that both daughters were "well informed, carrier oriented and are capable of taking their own decision," and noting that the elder sister continued to live with the father despite her earlier statement against him, the Bench held that the petitioners had made out a case for interference.

Directing custody to the father and sister, the Court ordered that the girl "shall always be free to lodge her protest in case of any complaint against her father," and directed the petitioners to give her a mobile phone, along with the local Station House Officer's number, who was directed to stay reachable at any hour.

The Bench clarified it had "not reflected upon the merits" of the pending criminal trial, and directed that the trial court not be influenced by its observations. The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Sonal Gupta with Panel Lawyer Charul Tiwari, while Advocate Anita Singh appeared for the mother.

With these directions, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

Case Title: SJ and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi