Madhya Pradesh High Court Returns Seven-Year-Old to Mother in Habeas Corpus Petition, Father's Custody Found Legally Untenable

The Jabalpur bench directed the State to hand over custody of a seven-year-old girl to her mother the same day, after the child unequivocally stated she wished to live with her mother and the father admitted no court order authorised his custody.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur ordered the immediate return of a seven-year-old girl, Ms. Nishi Shrivastava, to her mother on 1 June 2026, disposing of a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the mother, Priyanka Shrivastav. A Division Bench of Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, after directly interacting with the child in court, found that the father — Respondent No. 4 — had no legal basis to retain custody and directed the State's counsel to hand over the corpus to the petitioner the same day. The bench also preserved the father's right to pursue appropriate legal remedies under the law.

How the Child Came to Be in the Father's Custody

According to the petitioner, Ms. Nishi had lived with her mother since birth and had never resided with her father. On 27 May 2026, the father visited the petitioner's residence in Jabalpur. The following day, he took the child with him on the pretext of spending time with her, assuring the mother he would return her shortly. He did not. The petitioner contended that the father was forcibly retaining the child in his custody without any legal authority.

The father appeared in person before the bench along with his counsel, Shri Hemant Namdeo. His explanation was that the child had willingly accompanied him to his house to meet her grandmother and that the matter did not amount to forceful abduction. He could not, however, deny that the child had been residing with the mother since birth, nor could he point to any court order authorising him to take or retain custody.

The Child's Own Statement and the Bench's Reasoning

The State produced the corpus before the bench. Justice Pranay Verma, writing the order, recorded that the bench directly inquired from the child about her wishes. Ms. Nishi, aged seven, unequivocally stated that she wished to reside with her mother and did not wish to reside with her father.

The bench addressed the father's explanation squarely. Even accepting his version — that the child went voluntarily to meet her grandmother — the court held that this did not make his continued retention of custody legal. The order records: “it cannot be said that he has obtained the custody of corpus legally which hence cannot be permitted to continue.”

The absence of any court order permitting the father to take or hold custody was a decisive factor. The bench treated the father's own admission on this point as sufficient to establish that the detention was without legal sanction, regardless of whether physical force had been used at the time of taking the child.

Directions Issued

The bench directed the State's counsel to hand over custody of Ms. Nishi to the petitioner during the course of the day. The petitioner was declared free to take the child with her.

To protect the father's interest in maintaining contact, the bench imposed a corresponding obligation on the mother: she was directed to ensure that the child speaks to the father whenever he wishes to do so.

The court also clarified that it would be open to the father to resort to such legal remedies as may be available to him under the law in respect of the child. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 19596 of 2026 was disposed of on 1 June 2026. Custody of Ms. Nishi Shrivastava was directed to be returned to her mother, Priyanka Shrivastav, on the same day. The father was directed no further relief but was left free to approach the appropriate forum for any custody claim under the law.