Uttarakhand High Court
HABC/36/2024 of NAHID ALVI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 10 February 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 10.02.2026 HABC No.36 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
10.02.2026
HABC No.36 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Parikshit Saini and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. J. S. Virk, learned DAG along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Mukesh Kaparuwan, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
4. The petitioner has filed the instant habeas corpus petition seeking the corpus of her child, Master Ajhaan Ahmed, who, according to the petitioner, was in the custody of respondent no. 4, the father of the child.
5. Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, on 17.02.2025 this Court directed that the custody of the child may be handed over to the petitioner, and now the child is in the custody of the petitioner.
6. During the course of hearing, respondent no. 6, Shabana, joined the proceedings through V.C. She claims that she is the sister-in-law of respondent no. 4 and has nothing to do with this case, and her name has been wrongly implicated in the matter.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that on 17.02.2025 this Court directed that the custody of the child be handed over to the petitioner. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as under:- “3. Hence, we direct that the child shall remain with the mother, namely Nahid Alvi, and the husband (respondent no. 4) shall pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner for maintaining herself and the child.”
8. The petitioner wanted the corpus of her child, but now, by order dated 17.02.2025, the custody of the child has been handed over to the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, nothing survives in the petition.
10. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.02.2026 BS