The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a father’s appeal against an order directing him and his family members to hand over custody of their four-year-old son to the child’s mother. The Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur held that, in custody matters, the welfare and best interests of the child must remain the primary consideration.
Background
The appeal arose from a judgment dated August 20, 2026, passed by a Single Judge on a habeas corpus petition. A habeas corpus petition is a legal proceeding through which a person seeks the production and lawful custody of someone allegedly being kept without legal justification.
According to the mother’s counsel, the parties were married on September 20, 2018, and their son Vivaan was born on April 2, 2022. The mother alleged that on March 15, 2025, when she had gone to visit a doctor, the child was taken away and she was thereafter denied custody. The father’s side, however, argued that the child had been living comfortably under his care for more than a year and that the mother should approach the competent Civil Court for custody.
The Bench rejected the argument that a habeas corpus petition could not be maintained in a parental custody dispute. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that such a petition is maintainable, although extraordinary jurisdiction may not always be exercised where a detailed custody inquiry is necessary.
The Court further relied on the statutory principle that custody of a child below five years should ordinarily remain with the mother, while making clear that the child’s welfare remains the controlling consideration.
The Bench observed:
“In matters concerning custody of a minor, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The rights asserted by either parent must necessarily yield to the welfare and the best interests of the minor."
The Court noted that the child was around four years and five months old and found no material showing that the mother was incapable or unsuitable to care for him. It also held that merely because the child had remained with the father and his family for some time did not, by itself, create a right to retain custody.
The High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order. While custody was placed with the mother, the father was granted visitation rights and liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for permanent custody.
The Letters Patent Appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: R K and Others v. I J
Case Number: LPA-2434-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur
Decision Date: September 21, 2026
