Mother Gets Custody Of 21-Month-Old Son: Allahabad HC Rejects Husband's Claim That Stomach Pain Prescription Proved She Was Alcoholic

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that medical prescriptions showing treatment for abdominal pain cannot be used to conclude that a woman is alcoholic or mentally unfit to care for her child, while granting custody of a 21-month-old boy to his mother in a habeas corpus petition.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that “no such definite opinion” had been expressed in the medical prescriptions produced by the husband to establish that the petitioner was alcoholic or mentally unstable.

Court said that on the basis of those prescriptions, “it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in a fit physical and mental condition to look after the welfare of the minor corpus".

Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Rinku Ram alias Rinku Devi seeking custody of her minor son from her husband Dharmendra Ram, a constable in the UP Police posted in Jaunpur district.

During the proceedings, the husband opposed the custody plea and alleged that the woman was addicted to intoxicants, alcoholic and suffering from psychiatric problems. To support his claims, he relied upon certain prescriptions issued by District Hospital, Varanasi.

However, court found that the prescriptions merely showed that the woman had approached doctors for treatment of abdominal pain and had been advised to avoid spicy food. Court held that the documents did not establish either alcoholism or mental instability.

Justice Jain thereafter examined the issue of custody on the touchstone of the child’s welfare, noting that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, custody of a child below five years ordinarily remains with the mother.

Court observed that the 21-month-old child was still dependent on the mother for nutritional and emotional needs and held that depriving the child of maternal custody at such a tender age would be unjust.

There was a matrimonial discord between the parties. The mother alleged that after her marriage in December 2023, she was subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty. She further claimed that the child had been forcibly taken away by the father in August 2025, following which an FIR under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was registered against him at Haldi police station in Ballia district.

Court also noted that the constable had been suspended by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, on March 12, 2026, in connection with allegations that he failed to comply with earlier directions of the Child Welfare Committee to hand over custody of the child to the mother.

Court noted that a division bench of the high court had earlier restored the habeas corpus petition after setting aside an order dismissing it on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The Division Bench had clarified that in custody matters involving minors, the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration.

Justice Jain also referred to WhatsApp chats and photographs produced by the woman, which allegedly showed the constable in the company of another woman. While the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the nature of that relationship, it observed that the photographs did show the respondent with another woman.

Criticising the conduct of the constable, court observed that he had shown disregard towards directions passed by the authorities and noted that such behaviour was particularly serious considering that he was a member of a disciplined police force.

Allowing the petition, court directed the constable to hand over custody of the child to the mother within three days. At the same time, it granted him visitation rights twice a month at the nearest police station after prior intimation to the petitioner.

Case Title: Smt. Rinku Ram @ Rinku Devi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Order Date: April 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain