CRWP-9949-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CRWP-9949-2025 Decided on : 11.09.2025 COLONEL ABHISHEK MAMGAIN (RETIRED) ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. The prayer in the instant criminal writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get the child Dhruv Mamgain, released from unlawful/improper custody of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner solemnized marriage with Akansha Gupta on 23.05.2005 and out of this wedlock, a male child was also born on 26.08.2010. The petitioner was posted to Averi, Himachal Pradesh upon his promotion as Colonel, which was a family station. The petitioner’s wife whose family was staying at Panchkula did not accompany the petitioner at his place of posting. It is further contended that wife of the petitioner and his son are residing separately from petitioner since so many years. The petitioner has also availed legal remedy to take the custody of his minor son, but respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have refused to do so. In support of his contention, he has also Page 1 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.09.17 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-9949-2025 relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others’, 2020 AIR Supreme Court 577 decided on 20.01.2020. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has filed petition for custody of his minor son Dhruv Mamgain and visiting rights have been given to him and the petition regarding custody of child is still pending, but during the pendency of the petition, respondent No.4 who is mother of the detenue and wife of the petitioner has expired and detenue is now residing with his maternal grandfather. So, custody of the detenue is not considered as an illegal custody. Secondly, there is petition already pending before the Family Court regarding the custody of child. So his efffcacious remedy is to move application to that Court for his legal remedy. 5. This Court finds no merit in the petition. The present petition is hereby dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 11.09.2025 pry Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Page 2 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.09.17 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document