Punjab & Haryana HC: Habeas Corpus Petition for Minor’s Custody Dismissed, Mother Directed to Pursue Guardianship Remedy Under Guardians and Wards Act

Case Name: Kirna Devi v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2025
Citation: CRWP No. 4536 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the natural mother seeking custody of her three-year-old son from his paternal grandmother and uncle. It held that while the mother is ordinarily recognized as the natural guardian of a child below five years under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in this case the question of custody was already pending before the competent Family Court under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court emphasized that habeas corpus is not a substitute for statutory guardianship proceedings, and absent any imminent threat to the child’s welfare, custody disputes should be resolved in the proper forum .

Summary: The petitioner’s husband died in October 2023 under suspicious circumstances. She continued to live with her in-laws for her son’s welfare but was later denied entry to the matrimonial home, with the child’s custody allegedly withheld by the grandmother and uncle. Despite multiple panchayats and a police complaint, the child was not restored. The petitioner alleged her signatures were fraudulently taken on blank papers, later misused to support the grandmother’s guardianship petition. The respondents opposed, arguing that custody with them was not illegal, that the petitioner had alternative remedies before the Family Court, and that the child was being well cared for. The Court cited precedents including Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar Kapoor (1982), Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana (2001), Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017), and Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2017), reiterating that welfare of the child is paramount and habeas corpus jurisdiction is to be sparingly invoked only when custody is illegal or welfare is endangered .

Decision: The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, leaving the parties to pursue their claims before the Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act. It directed the Family Court to decide the pending guardianship petition and interim applications expeditiously, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment .