Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea for Child Custody; Holds Minor’s Custody With Father Not Illegal
Case Name: Pallavi alias Heena Parveen v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 20 January 2026
Citation: CRWP-14114-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor girl child, holding that custody of a child with one of her natural guardians, namely the father, cannot be termed illegal so as to warrant exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for deciding child custody disputes where no illegal detention is established.
Summary: The petitioner, mother of the minor child Aliza @ Alisha aged about seven years, approached the High Court seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention of the child by respondent No.4, the father. The petitioner contended that pursuant to a deed of Mubarat-nama and a decree of mutual divorce granted by the Family Court, permanent custody of the minor daughter had been agreed to remain with her, while custody of the son remained with the father.
It was alleged that on 09.10.2024, the father took the minor daughter out with permission but failed to return her and subsequently refused to hand over custody. The petitioner asserted that such act amounted to illegal detention justifying intervention under Article 226/227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS.
The father opposed the petition contending that custody of the child with him could not be treated as illegal, as he is a natural guardian. It was further submitted that custody proceedings were already pending before the competent Guardians and Wards Court.
The High Court examined the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction in child custody matters and relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, holding that habeas corpus is maintainable only where custody of a minor is illegal or without authority of law. The Court observed that custody of a minor child with either of the natural guardians does not ipso facto become illegal.
The Court further noted the increasing tendency of parties to invoke writ jurisdiction to settle custody disputes and reiterated that such disputes must ordinarily be adjudicated by the Guardians and Wards Court, where detailed enquiry into the welfare of the child can be undertaken.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The High Court held that no writ of habeas corpus was warranted as the minor child was in the custody of her natural guardian. Liberty was granted to the parties to agitate the issue of custody before the competent Guardians and Wards Court.