Listen To This Post

Chandigarh: Observing a growing trend of estranged parents invoking habeas corpus petitions to settle child custody disputes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for guardianship proceedings meant to determine a child’s welfare.

Dismissing a man’s petition seeking the custody of his six-month-old daughter, Justice Rupinderjit Chahal held that the child’s custody with her mother — a natural guardian — could not be considered illegal or unlawful unless it violated a specific legal order.

The court noted that disgruntled parents are increasingly filing habeas corpus petitions to resolve custody disputes, which are better addressed through guardianship proceedings.

“This court has noticed an increasing tendency among disgruntled parents and other family members to move a writ petition like habeas corpus to settle custody of children,” the Bench observed.

The court clarified that the writ of habeas corpus is primarily intended to secure a person’s release from unlawful detention and may be invoked in child custody matters only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the child’s safety is at risk.

However, such proceedings cannot replace the detailed examination of a child’s welfare conducted under guardianship laws.

“Habeas corpus does not involve the detailed inquiry into welfare and best interests that is central to guardianship proceedings,” Justice Chahal said, adding that the remedy could at best be used to grant temporary custody in urgent situations.

The petition before the court was filed by a man who alleged that his wife had left the matrimonial home shortly after the birth of their daughter in July 2025 at Panchkula’s Sector-6 General Hospital and had been living with her parents since then.

The petitioner contended that the child was being kept away from him illegally and claimed that the mother had failed to ensure the child’s timely vaccination. He said he had approached the Child Welfare Committee in Ambala, after which the child was vaccinated.

During the hearing, it was also submitted that efforts by the petitioner and his family to maintain cordial relations had failed due to the wife’s alleged “adamant and quarrelsome behaviour”.

The court, however, held that a parent could invoke the writ of habeas corpus only if the child were in the custody of someone without lawful authority.

“In disputes between natural guardians, the matter is best examined by the Court of Guardians and Wards, which has the jurisdiction and expertise to determine the welfare of the child,” the Bench observed.

It further noted that writ courts must exercise restraint when contested factual issues arise and that evidence from both sides must be examined. “In the present matter, no circumstance has been established that would warrant intervention through a writ of habeas corpus,” the court concluded.