In a significant ruling on child custody disputes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to entertain a habeas corpus plea filed by a mother seeking custody of her 9-year-old daughter. The Court clarified that such matters must be decided by a competent family court unless clear illegal detention is shown.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-mother and her husband over the custody of their minor daughter, Nitara Gupta. According to the plea, the couple separated in August 2024, after which the child continued to live with her father and paternal grandparents.
Read also:- Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Hyderabad Land Case, Flags Misuse of Execution Proceedings
The mother approached the High Court alleging that her daughter was being kept in illegal custody. She claimed that on December 30, 2025, the father left India without informing her, and the child was taken from a school bus stop by a third party, raising concerns about her safety.
She sought a writ of habeas corpus for production of the child, along with interim custody and appointment of a Warrant Officer.
Appearing in person, the mother argued that she had a natural right to care and custody of her child. She alleged that her access to the child had been gradually restricted and that the child’s whereabouts were not properly disclosed.
“The child was taken without my consent and kept away from me,” she contended, expressing apprehension about the possibility of the child being taken abroad.
Read also:- Graphology Reports Not Admissible Without Proving Scientific Relevance: Bombay High Court
Counsel for the father opposed the petition, stating that the child was always in the lawful custody of her father, who is the natural guardian. It was argued that custody with a parent cannot be termed illegal.
The State’s status report also confirmed that the child had been traced and was living with her father. The authorities noted that the mother was aware of the child’s location and had been in contact through meetings and video calls.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that a writ of habeas corpus in child custody matters is maintainable only when there is clear illegal detention.
“The custody of a minor with a natural guardian cannot ordinarily be termed illegal,” the Court noted, emphasizing that no material was placed on record to show unlawful confinement.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Cruelty Case Against In-Laws, Flags ‘Vague Allegations’ and 7-Year Delay
The Court further highlighted that disputes over custody involve detailed examination of facts and the welfare of the child, which cannot be adequately addressed in writ proceedings.
“The welfare and best interest of the child is the paramount consideration,” the bench observed, adding that such evaluation requires evidence and proper adjudication.
The High Court held that the present case involved disputed questions of fact and did not meet the threshold for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, such as a family court, for custody and visitation rights.
Case Details
Case Title: Jyotsna Goel vs State of Haryana & Ors.
Case Number: CRWP-55-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
