Recently, in a significant custody dispute involving transnational parental claims and competing guardianship rights, the Delhi High Court stepped in to examine whether extraordinary habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to seek custody of a minor child residing in the United States with his mother. The petition, filed by a father and grandmother seeking production of the child before the Court, raised allegations that the mother had taken the children out of India without consent during ongoing matrimonial discord.
The controversy began when the petitioner (father), an American citizen married to the Respondent in the USA, approached the High Court claiming that his former wife had left India with their two children in August 2018 without informing him. The couple had earlier lived in India with their daughter, while their son had been born through surrogacy in the United States. According to the Petitioners, the grandmother lodged a missing complaint before Police Station after the mother and children allegedly disappeared. Police investigation later revealed that the respondent (wife) had travelled to the United States with both children, though a status report also referred to an email allegedly sent to the Petitioner after the flight had taken off.
The parties subsequently underwent divorce proceedings in the USA, and the children have remained with the mother there since 2018. Seeking the return of the minor son to India, the Petitioners invoked habeas corpus jurisdiction and also sought assistance from authorities, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the CBI for implementation of any custody directions overseas. On the other hand, the respondent maintained that the move to the United States had been mutually contemplated and that the petitioner himself had arranged residential accommodation there.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the present case involved serious disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated within the limited scope of habeas corpus proceedings. Stressing that custody matters require a detailed examination of a child’s welfare, emotional environment, and long-term interests, the Court noted that “the Habeas Corpus proceedings cannot be converted into custody battles for children.”
The Bench reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where a complex factual inquiry is necessary to determine the welfare of the child. The Court also took note of the fact that the child had been residing in the United States for nearly eight years, was an American citizen, and that the respondent-mother was reflected as the mother in all official records, including the child’s passport.
Significantly, the Bench highlighted the mediation framework established through the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for handling transnational custody conflicts and observed that such disputes are better suited for structured mediation and guardianship proceedings rather than extraordinary constitutional remedies.
Consequently, the Court held that the matter was “not an ideal case for entertaining a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” and permitted the petitioner to pursue remedies before the NCPCR and in pending criminal revision proceedings.
Case Title: Jasjit Singh Mangat & Anr Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1183/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Hon’ble Ms. Madhu Jain
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Chand Chopra, Adv. Punishk Handa
Advocate for the Respondent: CGSC Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, GP Priya Singh, Adv. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Adv. Kritarth Upadhyay, Adv. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Amulya Dev Mishra, SPP Anubha Bhardwaj, Adv. Ananya Shamshery, Adv. Muskan Chawla, Adv. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Archit Chauhan, Adv. Shivkant Arora, Adv. Adil Vasudeva, Adv. Jigyasa Prashaer
Picture Source :
