The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a father's habeas corpus petition seeking custody of his two-year-old daughter, holding that the child’s custody with her mother could not be treated as illegal merely because the father sought her return. The Court said the matrimonial dispute involved contested facts requiring a detailed examination by the competent court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani delivered the judgment on October 8, 2026, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background
The father approached the High Court alleging that his wife had taken their daughter away without his consent in August 2026 and subsequently denied him access to the child. He claimed that the child had previously remained in his care and sought her production before the Court, along with an order transferring custody to him.
The mother disputed his allegations. In her reply to a legal notice, she claimed that matrimonial difficulties had escalated over time. Among her allegations was that her husband had begun using ChatGPT excessively in January 2025, developing narratives that allegedly affected his behaviour and their relationship.
She also alleged that he had developed a one-sided romantic attachment towards a dentist and had behaved aggressively during a domestic disagreement. These were allegations recorded in the judgment, not findings independently established by the High Court.
The father had also approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Surat, seeking directions concerning the alleged offences and the production of the child. Those proceedings were pending when the High Court considered his petition.
The Bench emphasised that a child's welfare takes priority over either parent's legal claim. It examined Supreme Court decisions, including Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma and Tejaswini Goud v. Shekhar Jagdishprasad Tiwari, concerning habeas corpus petitions in child custody disputes.
The Court referred to the principle that custody disputes ordinarily require proceedings before a competent court capable of examining the evidence and assessing the child's welfare.
The judgment observed:
"A detailed enquiry is required" where disputed facts concerning custody and the child's welfare need to be examined.
The Bench found that the daughter was residing with her mother and that the material before it did not establish that her custody was illegal. It concluded that the competing claims required a thorough enquiry involving evidence.
Declining to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage and left the parties free to pursue appropriate remedies under the law.
The Bench clarified:
"We have not examined or expressed any opinion" on the parties' rival claims regarding permanent or interim custody of the minor child.
The Court directed that any competent court subsequently approached should decide the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations in this judgment.
