Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines to Interfere in Inter-Parent Custody Dispute Through Writ Jurisdiction; Holds Visitation Rights Granted by Family Court Cannot Be Curtailed on Allegations Requiring Trial
Case Name: Pallavi Chakravarty and Another v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2025
Citation: CRWP-8089-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking police protection and restraint on a father’s visitation rights, holding that disputed allegations relating to misuse of visitation, harassment, and custody of a minor cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that restraining a parent from exercising visitation rights granted by a competent Family Court would amount to indirectly modifying a subsisting judicial decree, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that custody and visitation disputes must ordinarily be resolved before the appropriate Family Court or statutory forum, and not through habeas corpus or police-protection petitions.
Summary: The petition was filed by a divorced mother and her minor child seeking directions for protection of life and liberty and for restraining the father from exercising visitation rights granted under a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners alleged that the father had misused visitation rights, subjected the minor child to harassment and trauma, and attempted to forcibly take custody of the child, leading to fear, anxiety, and disruption of the child’s routine.
The State contested the petition on the basis of a police enquiry, asserting that no cognizable offence was made out and that the dispute stemmed from enforcement of visitation arrangements ordered by a competent court. The father opposed the petition, contending that the allegations were exaggerated, unsupported by independent material, and aimed at frustrating his lawful visitation rights. It was argued that the writ petition was being used to give a criminal colour to a purely matrimonial and custody-related dispute.
The High Court examined the scope of writ jurisdiction in matters concerning custody of minor children and reiterated that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, which requires a holistic and evidence-based evaluation. Relying on settled jurisprudence, the Court held that writ proceedings are not a substitute for adjudication before Family Courts, which alone are equipped to examine disputed facts, interact with the child, and assess allegations of misuse of visitation rights.
The Court further held that once custody and visitation rights have been conclusively determined by a competent civil court, the High Court cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, sit in appeal over such a decree or modify its conditions. Allegations of threat or harassment, when seriously disputed and unsupported by unimpeachable material, cannot justify restraining a parent from exercising lawful visitation. The Court also noted that remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure and family law statutes were available and had not been exhausted.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that the petitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Family Court or statutory forum, including seeking modification of visitation rights or availing remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Observations made were confined to the writ proceedings and were not to prejudice the parties in any other proceedings.