Holding that the child’s welfare must take precedence over biological ties, the Allahabad High Court has declined to hand over the immediate custody of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl to her biological mother, who had entrusted her to another couple due to financial hardship. Noting the emotional bond that the girl developed with the woman who has been caring for her over two years, the court said an abrupt change in custody could affect her stable environment.Justice Sandeep Jain was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the biological mother and another woman seeking custody of the minor girl. The dispute arose after the woman who had been caring for the child separated from her first husband and married another man, with whom the girl is currently living.“In matters concerning the custody of a minor, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. The fact that the petitioner is the biological mother of the corpus is undoubtedly a relevant consideration; however, the claim of custody cannot be determined solely on that basis, particularly when the Court is required to consider the overall welfare and best interest of the minor,” the court said on October 1.The proceedings also involved an adoption deed dated September 13, 2024, which the mother’s counsel challenged on the ground that it was notarised but not registered. The high court declined to determine its legal validity, leaving the issue open for the competent forum.Why mother sought custodyDuring the proceedings, the mother told the court that she and her husband had entrusted the girl’s care to the caregiver and her first husband, and had not given the child in adoption to the couple that her daughter is living with at present. The mother sought the toddler’s custody after the caregiver’s remarriage. Justice Sandeep Jain directed that the biological mother be allowed to meet her daughter every Sunday and interact with her through video calls daily.The caregiver woman, on her part, told the court that the child’s mother had been unable to maintain her children – the older kids are aged 18 and 15 – due to financial hardship. She said the child’s custody had been given to her and her first husband when they were married. Producing the adoption deed dated September 13, 2024, she submitted that she had looked after the girl for nearly two years.Also Read | Spinal fluid ‘continues to leak’ after surgery, man wins Rs 20 lakh from hospital, doctorShe argued that the child had developed a strong emotional bond with her and that transferring custody abruptly could cause emotional distress. The caregiver also maintained that she and her current husband had the financial capacity to provide the girl with a secure environment.Story continues below this adCWC report consideredThe court considered a counselling report dated September 11, 2026, prepared by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) in Ghaziabad, which recorded that the child’s biological mother and her husband were poor and unable to properly maintain their children. It added that the caregiver and her second husband had enough financial capacity to care for the child, while noting the emotional bond she had developed with the woman. The committee had thus declined to hand over her custody to the mother.The toddler was produced before the high court in compliance with an earlier order dated September 16. Given her tender age, the court said it could not have a meaningful interaction with her. However, her demeanour and conduct suggested that she was comfortable with the caregiver and her current husband.Considering the child’s age, the period she had spent with the caregiver, her emotional attachment, the financial circumstances, and the committee’s report, the court concluded, “In these circumstances…an abrupt change in the custody of the minor corpus at this stage may not be conducive to her overall welfare and may cause disruption in the stable environment in which she has been residing for a considerable period,” it added.Adoption deed’s validity left openThe mother’s counsel argued that the adoption deed was only notarised and had not been registered, pointing out that the caregiver could not claim a legal right to custody on its basis. Her counsel also maintained that the biological mother was entitled to her daughter’s custody.Story continues below this adThe lawyers representing the caregiver argued that the child’s welfare was paramount and that the deed’s validity did not need to be finally determined in the habeas corpus proceedings.Also Read | ‘Asked to leave’ Kasauli villa 3 hours after check-in, 4 women win Rs 1.4 lakh payoutThe high court clarified that disputes concerning the legal status of the deed could be adjudicated by the competent forum. “Any dispute regarding the legal validity, effect or enforceability of the alleged adoption deed may appropriately be adjudicated upon by the competent forum in appropriate proceedings. For the purposes of the present proceedings, this Court is primarily concerned with the question as to what arrangement would presently serve the paramount welfare and best interest of the minor corpus,” the judge said.The order, hence, did not finally determine the validity of the alleged adoption.Allowed Sunday visits, daily video callsWhile refusing to transfer custody, the court directed arrangements to preserve the relationship between the biological mother and her daughter. The mother will be permitted to meet the child at Muradnagar Police Station in Ghaziabad every Sunday between 2 pm and 6 pm. The caregiver and her husband have also been directed to ensure that these meetings take place.Story continues below this adThe court also ordered that the biological mother be allowed to interact with the child through video conferencing every day between 6 pm and 9 pm.The high court thus disposed of the habeas corpus petition. It clarified that these directions would not prejudice either party’s rights in future proceedings concerning the adoption deed’s validity or legal effect.