Habeas Corpus Maintainable Where Minor’s Custody Is Unlawful; Judicial Statement Relinquishing Custody Cannot Be Dislodged by Bald Allegations of Coercion: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sukhdeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 07 August 2026
Citation: CRWP-7678-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in a child custody dispute where the custody of the minor is alleged to be unlawful, with the welfare and best interests of the child remaining the paramount consideration and the Court acting as parens patriae. The Court further held that a statement recorded before a competent Court carries a strong presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and mere bald allegations of coercion, unsupported by contemporaneous material, are insufficient to dislodge that presumption. In the circumstances, restoration of the minor’s custody to his biological father was held to better serve the child’s welfare, stability and overall development than continued custody with maternal relatives in the absence of either parent.
Summary: The petitioner-father sought a writ of habeas corpus for restoration of custody of his 4½-year-old son, who was residing with his maternal grandparents and maternal uncle after the child’s mother returned to Canada. The petitioner relied upon a statement made by the mother before the Family Court during mutual-consent divorce proceedings, whereby she had agreed that permanent custody of the child would remain with the father and that she would not claim custody in future. The private respondents opposed the petition, alleging that the mother’s consent and related documents had been obtained through coercion and contending that the appropriate remedy lay under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Relying upon Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the High Court rejected the objection to maintainability and held that habeas corpus jurisdiction can be exercised where custody of a minor is unlawful. On merits, the Court noted that there was no specific allegation or material showing that the mother’s independent statement before the Family Court itself had been made under coercion, nor had any contemporaneous objection been raised before that Court. The judicial statement therefore retained its presumption of regularity. Considering that the mother was residing in Canada, while the child remained with maternal relatives, the Court found restoration of custody to the biological father to be in the child’s welfare.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed the maternal grandparents and maternal uncle to hand over custody of the minor child to his father within ten days. In case of non-compliance, the concerned Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure implementation while avoiding unnecessary trauma to the child. The Court clarified that its decision concerned only the existing custody arrangement and would not prevent either parent from independently seeking permanent custody, visitation or guardianship before the competent Court.