Rachana @ Rachana Rani vs Rohit Khatana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 746 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rachana @ Rachana Rani vs Rohit Khatana And Another on 3 April, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:71735
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4315 of 2026   
 
   Rachana @ Rachana Rani    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Rohit Khatana And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Abhijat Awasthi, Anup Kumar Chaubey, Satyendra Narayan Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
  
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the parties.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the plaintiff-respondent and the proforma respondents.

3. The case of the defendant-petitioner is that the plaintiff-respondent instituted proceedings under the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act, 1956 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, seeking a direction to the defendants, including the present petitioner and another defendant, namely Shalu@ Shanu, to produce the minor child, Lakshya. An objection was filed by the defendant-petitioner stating that the minor child is in the custody of the maternal grandmother and that the petitioner, being the mausi (sister of the deceased wife of the plaintiff-respondent), does not have custody of the child.

4. It is further submitted that by order dated 21.02.2024, the trial court directed the defendant-petitioner to produce the minor child as well as the maternal grandmother. Thereafter, in execution proceedings, by order dated 07.11.2025, the trial court again directed production of the minor child and the maternal grandmother for enforcement of the 21.02.2024.

5. Questioning the both the aforesaid orders present petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner contends that the maternal grandmother is not a party to the proceedings and, therefore, no such direction could have been issued. It is also submitted that the plaintiff-respondent has a criminal background and the minor child is unwilling to reside with him.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced and perused the record, it appears that proceedings under the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act, 1956 were instituted wherein, by order dated 21.02.2024, a direction was issued for production of the minor child along with the person in whose custody the child was stated to be. Subsequently, in execution of the said order, the order dated 07.11.2025 came to be passed.

8. In the opinion of the Court, the trial court is well within its jurisdiction to direct production of the minor child as well as the person in whose custody the child is stated to be residing. Merely because the maternal grandmother is not a party to the proceedings would not render the impugned orders illegal, particularly when her presence has been sought only for facilitating production of the minor child thus no ground for interference is made out.

9. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

April 3, 2026

Sushma