Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs Custody of 2.5-Year-Old Child to Working Mother in Habeas Corpus Petition, Emphasizing Statutory Preference Under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Paramount Welfare of Minor Over Technical Objections Regarding Alternative Remedies
Case Name: Harjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others
Date of Judgment: 10.09.2026
Citation: CRWP No.7195 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus for the custody of a minor child is maintainable against a natural guardian parent when the detention is contrary to the welfare of the child and statutory provisions. Relying upon Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which stipulates that the custody of a child under five years of age shall ordinarily be with the mother, the Court ruled that a 2.5-year-old child must remain in the mother’s care, especially where the mother is financially stable, securely employed as a Senior Assistant at Punjab University, and well-equipped to nurture the child, whereas the father failed to disclose credentials, income, or employment details.
Summary: The petitioner-mother approached the High Court through a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the release and restoration of custody of her 2.5-year-old minor daughter, Gurnaaz Kaur, who was allegedly taken away and wrongfully detained by the respondent-father and his family members. The petitioner contended that she faced domestic cruelty, demands for money, and harassment, culminating in the forcible removal of the infant child. In response, the respondents argued that the habeas corpus petition was non-maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and that the father as a natural guardian was providing proper care, further alleging that the mother suffered from psychiatric issues. The High Court examined the maintainability of the writ, the welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration, and the statutory mandate favoring maternal custody for children under five years of age.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. Respondent was directed to hand over the custody of the minor daughter to the petitioner, failing which official respondents were instructed to enforce the handover. The father was granted liberty to approach the Guardian or Family Court under the HMG Act or GW Act for regular custody, and visitation and video-calling rights were secured for him pending that decision.