The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, comprising Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Alok Awasthi, delivered an order on 13 July 2026 permitting a minor girl to reside with her father and her elder sister. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl’s elder sister as petitioner number one and the father as petitioner number two, seeking the minor’s custody on the ground that her detention was unlawful.
During the proceedings, the minor girl appeared before the court and gave a statement in which she asserted that her father had been falsely implicated in an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. She further stated that the false implication had been brought about at the behest of her mother. The court took note of this statement as a material factor in determining the minor’s welfare and the propriety of her continued custody.
The bench observed that, while the allegations under the POCSO Act are serious and require careful scrutiny, the liberty of a minor cannot be curtailed solely on the basis of pending allegations, especially when the child herself expresses a clear desire to live with the accused parent and denies any wrongdoing on his part. The court emphasized that the paramount consideration in habeas corpus proceedings involving a minor is the child’s best interest, which must be assessed in light of the child’s own wishes, the nature of the allegations, and the absence of any concrete evidence substantiating the claim at that stage.
In reaching its decision, the court relied on the principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration under both statutory provisions and judicial precedent. It noted that the minor’s unequivocal statement indicating that the father had been falsely implicated weighed heavily in favour of allowing her to remain in his custody, particularly as she expressed no fear or apprehension about residing with him. The court further observed that the mother’s allegations, as presented in the petition, did not, at that juncture, establish a sufficient basis to override the minor’s expressed preference.
The order consequently directed that the minor girl be permitted to live with her father and her elder sister, thereby granting the relief sought in the habeas corpus petition. The bench clarified that the order does not constitute a determination of the merits of the POCSO allegations, which remain subject to the ongoing criminal proceedings, but merely addresses the immediate question of the minor’s custody pending those proceedings.
Legal commentators have noted that the decision underscores the judiciary’s effort to balance the protective intent of the POCSO Act with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the welfare principle in custody disputes. By placing significant weight on the minor’s own statement and her expressed desire to stay with her father, the court highlighted the importance of hearing the child’s voice in matters that directly affect her life and liberty.
The ruling adds to the evolving jurisprudence concerning the interaction between special statutes aimed at protecting children and the general principles governing habeas corpus relief. It reaffirms that, in cases where a minor is capable of forming an intelligible preference, her views must be accorded due consideration, even when serious criminal allegations are pending against a parent.