DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Punjab and Haryana High Court rules habeas corpus not applicable in father-child custody disputes

The court emphasised that the appropriate remedy for custody disputes was under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Justice Batra also declined a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her two children from their father.
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable in child custody matters involving father. Justice Manisha Batra’s Bench also ruled that the custody of a child with the father could not be deemed illegal.

Justice Batra asserted a writ of habeas corpus in custody matters was maintainable only when the person detaining the child was not legally entitled to the custody. The court emphasised that the appropriate remedy for custody disputes was under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, and not through a habeas corpus petition unless the child was in illegal or unauthorised custody.

Justice Batra also declined a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her two children from their father. The court noted: “The question that arises before this court for consideration is as to whether the custody of the minor children with respondent-father can be stated to be illegal, warranting issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing their release from his custody. In the considered opinion of this court, the answer to this question should be in the negative.”

Advertisement

Justice Batra referred to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which stated that “the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother”. As the children in the case before the court were aged 10 and eight, the father’s custody could not be deemed illegal, the court ruled.

Citing precedents, Justice Batra noted that “recourse to such a remedy should not be permitted unless the ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective”.

Advertisement

“Certain claims and counter claims with regard to conduct of the parties have also been made by the parties against each other, which certainly cannot be decided in this petition. Even, during inquiry by the police authorities, it has been found that the petitioner is living in live-in relationship. However, without casting any aspersion on the moral character of the petitioner and considering the position of law as laid down in judgments, this court is of the view that the remedy available to the petitioner for obtaining custody of the children is to file an appropriate petition under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 and not to seek grant of writ of habeas corpus,” Justice Batra concluded

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper