[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rohan Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 23 February, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd February, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 509/2026
ROHAN SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sheebba Khuranaa and Mr.
Nishant, Advocates with
petitioner in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing
Counsel (Criminal) with Ms.
Priyam Agarwal and Mr. Aryan
Sachdeva, Advocates with SI
Kamal Sharma, PS-Maidangarhi.
Mr. Shivam Raturi and Mr.
Juned Ansari, Advocates for R-2.
Respondent no. 2 and child in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus or any other appropriate Writ or direction requiring the
presence of the minor daughter of the petitioner and the respondent
no. 2, Ms. XXXX, who is six years old.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2, who is
presently a resident of Doiwala, Uttarakhand, had taken away the
minor child, without the consent of the petitioner, on 07th January,
2026, and is not returning the custody of the child to him despite
repeated demands.
3. On 17th February, 2026, we directed the physical presence of
the respondent no. 2 along with the child.
4. We have interacted with the petitioner, the respondent no. 2,
and the child. Through this interaction, we learnt that the petitioner,
the respondent no. 2, and the child were residing together till around
September-October, 2025. The respondent no. 2 complains that she
moved out of the matrimonial home due to differences with the
petitioner and his parents, and despite her request, she was not given
the custody of the minor child nor was she allowed to meet the minor
child even virtually. She states that she came to Delhi on 06th January,
2026, and with the consent of the petitioner, took away the minor
child to her maternal home at Doiwala, Uttarakhand. She states that
she has, thereafter, filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act,
1890, before the learned Family Court at Uttarakhand, and further
stated that the child has also been admitted to a school there and her
exams are to start from 12th March, 2026.
5. On the other hand, the petitioner maintains that the child, since
her birth, was staying at Delhi and was admitted to a school in Delhi,
where her examination was to start from 19th February, 2026. It is
further submitted that the respondent no. 2 forcefully took away the
child without the consent of the petitioner. It is stated that the
petitioner had never stopped the respondent no. 2 from meeting the
child, either physically or virtually. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the welfare of the child would be at Delhi
as respondent no. 2 is suffering from cancer and will not be able to
take care of the child.
6. The learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent no. 2
have made submission on similar lines as the respective parties.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the petitioner and the respondent no. 2, as also by the
parties themselves.
8. At the outset, we would note the limited jurisdiction that we
exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to determine
the matters of custody and visitation of a minor child, especially when
the dispute is between the warring parents of the child, in a Writ of
Habeas Corpus.
9. The child, in the present case, is six years old and is presently
residing with the respondent no. 2, her mother at Uttarakhand. Such
custody cannot be termed as illegal. The matters for determining the
custody and visitation needs to be determined by the competent court,
created under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
10. Given the limited jurisdiction that we exercise under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to proceed further
with the present petition and leave it open to the parties to agitate their
rights and claims before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
11. However, in the interim, we direct that the respondent no. 2
must ensure that the child has interaction with the petitioner, virtually
or physically.
12. We make it clear that our present order shall in no manner
prejudice any of the parties in case they avail of their appropriate
remedies in accordance with law for the custody/visitation of the
child.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2026/vd/ma/ik
