Family Court Remedy Is No Excuse to Ignore Alleged Illegal Removal of a Child: Supreme Court Revives Father’s Habeas Corpus Petition

Case Name: Suryakanth M. Raikar v. State of Karnataka and Others

Date of Judgment: 19 August 2026

Citation: SLP (Crl.)No.8172 of 2026

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Held: The Supreme Court held that the mere availability of a remedy concerning child custody before the Family Court under Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 does not, by itself, justify the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal removal and custody of a minor child. Where the High Court had previously restored the child’s custody to the father and the child was subsequently removed from his custody without recourse to a competent court, the High Court was required to examine the allegation of illegal custody on its merits. The Court, however, clarified that it had not determined the rival claims concerning the child’s custody or guardianship.

Summary: The appellant’s wife died on 17 August 2020, leaving behind a son and a daughter, both of whom were minors at that time and were residing with their maternal relatives. The appellant-father approached the Karnataka High Court through a habeas corpus petition in 2020. By an order dated 25 January 2021, the High Court directed that the children’s custody be handed over to the father while granting liberty to the parties to pursue their respective custody claims before the appropriate forum.

The children thereafter remained in the appellant’s custody, and the daughter subsequently attained majority. According to the appellant, following a complaint lodged by the daughter against him in January 2026, the maternal relatives took the minor son away from his custody. The appellant submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer on 26 February 2026, alleging that his son was being illegally detained in Mangalore. When no action was taken, he filed another habeas corpus petition before the High Court seeking production and restoration of custody of his minor son.

The High Court disposed of the petition after observing that there was no element of illegal detention warranting the exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction. It held that questions relating to custody of a minor child fell within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and left the parties to agitate their claims before the appropriate forum.

The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable. It observed that the earlier High Court order restoring custody to the father was a material circumstance. If the minor child was subsequently removed from the father’s custody by the maternal relatives without obtaining an order from a competent forum, the circumstances in which such custody was obtained had to be examined while deciding the allegation of illegal detention.

The Court also referred to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which recognises the father as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, subject to the statutory qualifications. Since the appellant specifically alleged that his minor son had been removed from his lawful custody without authority of law, the High Court could not refuse to examine the grievance merely because proceedings could also be instituted before the Family Court.

The Supreme Court clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction in child-custody matters. The legality of the child’s present custody must be assessed in light of the particular facts, including previous judicial directions and the manner in which the child was subsequently removed. The High Court’s failure to consider these material circumstances rendered its order unsustainable.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order dated 11 March 2026 and remanded the habeas corpus petition to the High Court for fresh consideration on its merits. The High Court was directed to examine all relevant facts and circumstances concerning the minor child’s present custody. No final custody was awarded to the father, and the Supreme Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the rival custody or guardianship claims.