Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 January, 2026

CRWP-11038-2025 -1-

236 2026:PHHC 007589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-11038-2025
DECIDED ON: 20.01.2026
MANJIT KAUR
coeee PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
eosee RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rahul Kadian, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 7.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for releasing the detenue namely Amarjot Kaur, aged 02 years, daughter of the petitioner from the illegal custody of respondent No.4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is mother of the alleged detenue. He submits that the petitioner married with respondent No.4 on 08.05.2022 and out of the wedlock, one child (detenue) was born. He further submits that on 04.10.2025, respondents No. 4 to 7 allegedly assaulted the petitioner, forcibly turned her out of her matrimonial home, and snatched away her minor daughter,

Amarjot Kaur (detenue), aged about two years, who requires maternal care,

nourishment, and medical attention. It is further alleged that the child has been illegally confined and that the respondents are continuously harassing the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.2025 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural), Jagraon, District Ludhiana seeking custody of the minor child; however, no action has been taken till date.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 contends that the detenue is in custody of her father and by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as illegal since the father is the natural guardian of the detenue. He further prays that any direction in this writ petition is not warranted in the facts of the present case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the case file. Since the relationship between the parties became sour, due to this reason they are living separately. As per allegations of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child. The question that arises before this Court is whether custody of minor child with her father can be stated to be illegal, requiring writ in the nature of habeas corpus?

5. This Court has noticed an increasing tendency amongst disgruntled parents and other family members to move a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus, in order to settle custody of the children. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Tejaswini Gaud and others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari', 2019 AIR SC 2318, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, has opined as follows:

"18. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the

discretion of the court . Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.

19. In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the court exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is of summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a_ petition for habeas corpus.' (emphasis added)

6. The issue before the Court is whether habeas corpus can be used as an alternative to a guardianship order when it comes to deciding custody of a child. Habeas corpus is usually applied to secure the release of a person unlawfully detained, but it can also be used to ensure a child's safety and protection. However habeas corpus does not involve the detailed inquiry into welfare and best interest that is central to guardianship proceedings. Therefore, while habeas corpus can serve as a means of temporary custody, it does not replace the comprehensive

process of guardianship under the relevant statute.

7. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 23.05.2019 passed in LPA No.3716 of 2018 in case titled as Reetu Verma Vs. State of Haryana and others, observed as under:

"The parties are husband and wife, having a minor son namely Jiyanshu Verma. Admittedly, on account of matrimonial dispute minor son is in the custody of the father-respondent, as every time they have appeared before us, the child has been brought by him. Habeas Corpus petition was filed by the appellant-wife seeking custody of the minor child for herself Learned Single Judge dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the ground that the custody of a minor child with a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal and relegated the parties to avail the remedy under the Guardian and Wards Act. Before this Court innumerable efforts have been made by us for an amicable settlement between the two, to secure the interest of the child so that he is not deprived of either love of father or the mother. On more than two occasions we interacted with the parties in the Chamber to bring an amicable settlement but the same failed. Lastly, on the suggestion of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we referred the matter to the mediation, where also the parties have failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Since the question of the custody of the minor child and the welfare of the child being supreme it can only be decided on the basis of evidence as to which of the two parents are in a better position to look after the welfare of the child and a conclusion in respect of same only be arrived at by way of an evidence. Hence, in our considered opinion the impugned order and judgment does not require any interference and it would be in the interest of justice that the appellant is

relegated to avail the remedy under the Guardian and

Wards Act to seek the custody of the minor child before the appropriate Court. With this, intra court appeal

stands dismissed."

8. From the judgments cited, it is clear that in matters of child custody, a prerogative writ of Habeas Corpus may be initiated by the mother where the minor is being detained by a person who does not have lawful custody of the child.

9. Considering the facts on record and the settled legal principles, this Court is of the opinion that the custody of the father, being the natural guardian, cannot be regarded as illegal or unlawful unless shown to be contrary to a specific legal order or authority. Though the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, disputes between natural guardians are best examined by the Court of Guardians and Wards, which is vested with the jurisdiction and expertise to determine the welfare of the child and to provide both parties a full opportunity to present their claims and lead evidence.

10. Moreover, where such remedies exist, the Writ Court must exercise restraint, as contested factual issues are more appropriately resolved through detailed proceedings before the competent forum. In the present matter, no circumstance has been established that would warrant

intervention by this Court through a writ of Habeas Corpus.

11. Resultantly, the present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

(MANDEEP PANNU) 20.01.2026 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No