Archive · 28 Aug 2026
Allahabad High Court Upholds Father's Custody Rights Unless Unfit
The Allahabad High Court decided that a father usually has an important right to care for his young daughter.
The court said this right can be denied only if the father is shown to be unfit.
Abhishek Yadav asked for custody of his daughter after the child’s mother died.
The girl had been staying with her maternal grandfather and aunt.
The mother’s relatives opposed Yadav’s request and made allegations of dowry-related abuse.
A lower court had earlier refused to give him custody.
The High Court said the child might find it difficult to adjust to a new home.
However, it decided that her future would be more secure with Yadav and his family.
The court ordered the relatives to give him custody within one month.
The Allahabad High Court held that a father cannot be denied custody of his minor daughter unless he is shown to be unfit.
The ruling came in an appeal by Prayagraj advocate Abhishek Yadav after a trial court rejected his custody petition.
Yadav’s wife died in 2024, and her relatives had kept the daughter at her maternal home since 2023.
The relatives alleged that Yadav had tortured and physically abused his wife over dowry and might remarry.
The High Court ordered the respondents to hand over the child to Yadav within one month, citing her future stability and prospects.
- Who
- The Allahabad High Court, Abhishek Yadav, and the child’s maternal relatives.
- What
- The court allowed Yadav’s appeal and ordered that custody of his minor daughter be transferred to him.
- When
- The judgment was issued on August 21; the child’s mother died in 2024.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Allahabad High Court and involved a family from Prayagraj.
- Why
- The court held that the father had a paramount custody right under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act unless he was shown to be unfit, and found the child’s future prospects with the respondents insufficiently secure and stable.
Father’s Custody Claim
Maternal Relatives’ Objections
Eligibility for custody
Father’s Custody Claim
Yadav argued that he was the child’s natural guardian and should receive custody under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Maternal Relatives’ Objections
The relatives opposed custody and alleged that Yadav had tortured and physically abused his wife over dowry.
Child’s living arrangements
Father’s Custody Claim
The High Court found that the child’s future prospects did not appear sufficiently secure and stable while staying with the respondents.
Maternal Relatives’ Objections
The relatives said the child had lived with her maternal grandfather since she was a few months old and would face difficulty adjusting to Yadav and his family.
Best interests of the child
Father’s Custody Claim
The court acknowledged adjustment difficulties but concluded that the child’s future prospects should not be jeopardized because of those difficulties.
Maternal Relatives’ Objections
The respondents argued against changing the child’s established care arrangement and claimed Yadav was likely to remarry.
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
- Bench
- Justices Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan
- Appellant
- Abhishek Yadav, an advocate from Prayagraj
- Relevant law
- Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
- Other statute
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
- Custody deadline
- The respondents were directed to hand over the child within one month
- Child’s care before ruling
- She stayed by turns with her maternal grandfather and a maternal aunt