[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Bhat vs State Of Punjab And Others on 31 January, 2026
CRWP-12391-2023 -1-
105 2026:PHHO-O14285 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP-12391-2023
DECIDED ON: 31.01.2026
AMIT BHAT
cosee PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
ceoee RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. PS. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus
for enabling the repatriation of the minor child, namely, Dhiyara Bhat, who
is a registered bona fide resident of Germany and is being detained in India
by private respondent No.4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
petitioner is father of the alleged detenue. He submits that the petitioner
married with respondent No.4 on 14.12.2015 at Arya Samaj Mandir,
Ghaziabad and out of the wedlock, one child (detenue) was born on
29.09.2017. There has been a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and
respondent No.4, who has left the matrimonial home along with the alleged
detenue. Since then, respondent No.4 has not allowed the petitioner to meet
the detenue and have confined her in her illegal custody.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the detenue
is in custody of her mother and by no stretch of imagination it can be termed
as illegal since the mother 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the case file.
5. 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 mother can be stated to be illegal, requiring writ in the nature of habeas
corpus?
6. 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 Rajeshwari Chandrasekar
Ganesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 885,
speaking through Justice J.B. Pardiwala, observed as under:
"91. Thus, it is well established that in issuing the writ of
Habeas Corpus in the case of minors, the jurisdiction which the
Court exercises is an inherent jurisdiction as distinct from a
statutory jurisdiction conferred by any particular provision in
any special statute. In other words, the employment of the writ
of Habeas Corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but
independent of any statute. The jurisdiction exercised by the
court rests in such cases on its inherent equitable powers and
7.
exerts the force of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection
of its minor ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry
and the result sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of
4 of 6 the jurisdiction of a court of equity. The primary object of
a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to
determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will
probably be advanced. In a Habeas Corpus proceeding brought
by one parent against the other for the custody of their child, the
court has before it the question of the rights of the parties as
between themselves, and also has before it, if presented by the
pleadings and the evidence, the question of the interest which
the State, as parens patriae, has in promoting the best interests
of the child.
92. The general principle governing the award of custody of a
minor is succinctly stated in the following words in Halsbury's
Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 24, Article 511 at page
217:
".. Where in any proceedings before any court the
custody or upbringing of a minor is in question, then, in
deciding that question, the court must regard the minor's
welfare as the first and paramount consideration, and
may not take into consideration whether from any other
point of view the father's claim in respect of that custody
or upbringing is superior to that of the mother, or the
mother's claim is superior to that of the father." (emphasis
added)
In the present case, the detenue is 06 years and 02 months of
age, whose custody is sought by the petitioner by availing the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. So far as the custody of the child
is concerned, the mother per se is considered to be the best suited to take
care of child during her tender age particularly in cases where the child
require special care and attention. However, at the same time custody of
minor child with either of the natural guardians cannot be said to be
illegal.
8.
Considering, the position of law as discussed above, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no further order/direction is
required to be made in the writ of habeas corpus as the detenue is with her
natural guardian-mother. Needless to add, the parties would be at liberty
to settle the custody of the detenue by pursuing appropriate remedy as per
law.
9. In view thereof, finding no merit in the petition, the same is
dismissed.
10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
31.01.2026 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
