The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a father's habeas corpus petition seeking custody of his two minor daughters, holding that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised where a detailed inquiry into the children's welfare is required. The Division Bench made it clear that the pending proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act provide the appropriate legal forum to decide the custody dispute.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by father, who sought custody of his daughters, aged about five and three years, through a writ of habeas corpus. At the time of filing, the children were living with their maternal grandmother.
The Court noted that the children's mother had died under suspicious circumstances. An FIR had earlier been registered against the father under provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment also records that the father subsequently lodged another FIR against the maternal grandmother. Separately, he had already instituted proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act before the XIII Additional District Judge at Narasaraopet, where the custody matter remains pending.
Court's Observations
The Bench examined whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable in the facts of the case. Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, including Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the Court observed that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is generally invoked only when a minor is being unlawfully detained.
Quoting the settled legal position, the Bench observed,
"In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act."
It further noted that where the dispute requires examination of evidence and assessment of the child's welfare, the writ court may decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Court also relied on later Supreme Court rulings reiterating that no rigid rule governs the maintainability of habeas corpus petitions in child custody cases. Whether such jurisdiction should be exercised depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Why the High Court Refused to Entertain the Petition
Applying these principles, the Bench found that the present dispute required a detailed examination of facts, particularly concerning the welfare of the two minor children.
The judges observed,
"It is not an apt case to invoke the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ of Habeas Corpus."
They emphasized that questions relating to the children's welfare could only be effectively examined in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act and not through the summary procedure of a writ petition.
The Court also noted that the father had already availed the statutory remedy by filing a guardianship petition, making that the appropriate forum for adjudicating the custody claim.
Decision
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition while expressly clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the father's custody claim. The Bench directed that the custody dispute should be decided in accordance with law in the already pending proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: K. C. v. The State of A.P. & 4 Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8105 of 2026
Judges: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta
Decision Date: 23 June 2026
