The Madras High Court has directed a father to hand over the custody of his two-and-a-half-year-old child to the mother, observing that even a natural guardian cannot take a minor child’s custody by force. The Court clarified that custody must be sought through the procedure established by law.
Background
The petitioner, a medical doctor, had married the third respondent on January 21, 2021, in Puducherry. The couple had two children. Due to alleged verbal and physical harassment, the petitioner left the matrimonial home with her children and started living with her mother in Madipakkam, Chennai.
According to the petitioner, on August 28, 2026, her husband allegedly visited her parental home and forcibly took away their minor child without her consent. She approached the All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, following which CSR No. 0187 of 2026 was registered. However, alleging that no effective action had been taken, she approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition.
The father's counsel submitted that he was the child's natural guardian and had secured admission for the child at Lycée Français International de Pondichéry. He explained that he had taken the child because the school had commenced and the mother had not brought the child.
The State informed the Court that the police enquiry was still pending and that the father had not appeared despite being summoned.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice B. Karthikeyan observed that the father's status as a natural guardian did not permit him to take the child by force.
The Court categorically observed:
"Though the third respondent is the father and natural guardian of the child, who is just about 2 ½ years old, the custody of the minor child cannot be taken by force and must be sought in accordance with the procedure established by law."
Considering the circumstances, the High Court directed the father to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner.
The Bench clarified that its observations would remain confined to the present habeas corpus petition and would not influence any subsequent proceedings initiated by either party before the appropriate forum.
Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition was closed.
