Habeas Corpus Petition Maintainable for Child Custody Between Parents: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Custody to Mother Reaffirms Welfare Principle
Case Name: Gurwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
Citation: CRWP-4952-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for deciding the custody of a minor child between parents where the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The Court reiterated that the custody of a child below five years should ordinarily remain with the mother unless she is proved to be unsuitable. Finding no material to establish that the petitioner-mother was unfit to care for her three-year-old son, the Court directed the immediate restoration of the child’s custody to the mother while preserving the father’s visitation rights.
Summary: The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution for the custody of her minor son, Yuvrajpreet Singh, alleging that after marital disputes and harassment by her in-laws, the respondents forcibly retained the child when she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. She contended that despite approaching the police and the Women Helpline, no effective action was taken to restore the custody of her three-year-old son. Relying upon the decision in Sonia v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, she argued that the child’s welfare would be best served in the custody of his mother.
The respondents opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner had voluntarily left the child with them when her husband went abroad for employment. They submitted that the child was receiving proper education and care, that the petitioner was pregnant and financially dependent, and therefore incapable of adequately looking after the child. It was further argued that a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable against the father and that the petitioner should instead seek relief under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court referred to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and reaffirmed the principle laid down in Sonia v. Union Territory of Chandigarh that a habeas corpus petition is maintainable in child custody matters where the Court’s primary concern is the welfare of the child. The Court observed that the child was only about three years and two months old and that the respondents had failed to produce any material demonstrating that the petitioner was unsuitable to have custody. The Court rejected the contention that the petitioner’s pregnancy or financial dependence rendered her incapable of caring for her son, observing that separating a young child from his mother at such a stage would amount to grave cruelty.
Holding that the welfare of the child would be best served in the custody of the mother, the Court directed the respondents to immediately hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, was directed to ensure compliance and file an affidavit before the Court. At the same time, the Court protected the father’s right of access by directing that he should be granted visitation subject to the convenience of the parties and the welfare of the child.
Decision: The criminal writ petition was allowed. The High Court directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the three-year-old child to the petitioner-mother forthwith. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, was directed to ensure compliance and submit an affidavit within one week. The father was granted visitation rights, subject to the convenience of the parties and the welfare of the child.