CRWP-690 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Rajbeer Kaur State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Constitution of India direction to to as ‘children in question’ the petitioner, who is their mother mother’s care, affection and protection 2. lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: (i) No.2 namely Lakhwinder Singh about three years ago as per Sikh rites. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born i.e. Karandeep Singh (DOB: 22.01.2022) and Sartaj Singh (DOB 01.03.2023). (ii) she was subjected to persistent cruelty, harassment and dowry demands by 690-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajbeer Kaur V/s State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. PPS Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. The petition in hand filed Constitution of India, is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to produce the minor sons children in question’) before this Court and to grant their custody t the petitioner, who is their mother, as they are of tender age and require care, affection and protection. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the in hand is adumbrated, thus: The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 namely Lakhwinder Singh about three years ago as per Sikh rites. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born i.e. Karandeep Singh (DOB: 22.01.2022) and Sartaj Singh (DOB 01.03.2023). After the birth of the second child, the petitioner was subjected to persistent cruelty, harassment and dowry demands by 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-690-2024 Date of decision: 05.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents SUMEET GOEL PS Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for respondent No.2. filed, under Articles 226/227 of the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or respondents to produce the minor sons (hereinafter referred before this Court and to grant their custody t as they are of tender age and require essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 namely Lakhwinder Singh about three years ago as per Sikh rites. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born i.e. Karandeep Singh (DOB: 22.01.2022) and Sartaj Singh (DOB 01.03.2023). ter the birth of the second child, the petitioner has stated that was subjected to persistent cruelty, harassment and dowry demands by .2025 under Articles 226/227 of the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or (hereinafter referred before this Court and to grant their custody to as they are of tender age and require essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 namely Lakhwinder Singh about three years ago as per Sikh rites. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born i.e. Karandeep Singh (DOB: has stated that was subjected to persistent cruelty, harassment and dowry demands by MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 her husband additional articles and furniture 10.11.2023 to maintain peace, the maltreatment continued. The petitioner alleged that she was ousted from her matrimonial home but after compromise, she was allowed to stay at her matrimonial home. (iii) respondent No.2 No.3. Thereafter, her harassment intensified at the hands of her husband i.e. respondent No.2 as also by her in physically assaulted, wrongfully confined and prevented from seeking police assistance. On 23.11.2023, when the mother of the petitioner intervened, she too was beaten. Thereafter, written complaints were submitted to the police (copy whereof has to P-3), but to no effective avail. (iv) assurance that the custody of the minor children would be restored to the petitioner, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home during the night of 22/23.11.2023 and her children were wrongfully retained by respondents sons. Thereafter, the petitioner made number of complaints before the police authorities and women Cell (Copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures P Owing to the deliberate inaction by the police authorities, who are acting under the influence of respondent No.2, the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this Court by way of the petition in hand. 690-2024 her husband (respondent No.2 - herein) additional articles and furniture items 10.11.2023 to maintain peace, the maltreatment continued. The petitioner alleged that she was ousted from her matrimonial home but after compromise, she was allowed to stay at her matrimonial home. It was alleged by the petitioner that she later discovered that respondent No.2, was maintaining an illicit r . Thereafter, her harassment intensified at the hands of her husband i.e. respondent No.2 as also by her in-laws. On 22.11.2023, the petitio physically assaulted, wrongfully confined and prevented from seeking police assistance. On 23.11.2023, when the mother of the petitioner intervened, she too was beaten. Thereafter, written complaints were submitted to the police (copy whereof has but to no effective avail. The petitioner has further alleged that assurance that the custody of the minor children would be restored to the petitioner, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home during the night of 22/23.11.2023 and her children were wrongfully retained by respondents. Since then, the petitioner has been denied access to her minor sons. Thereafter, the petitioner made number of complaints before the police authorities and women Cell (Copies whereof have been annexed as Annexures P-4 & P-5 with the instant petition) Owing to the deliberate inaction by the police authorities, who are acting under the influence of respondent No.2, the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this Court by way of the petition in hand. 2 herein) and in-laws. Despite providing amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- 10.11.2023 to maintain peace, the maltreatment continued. The petitioner alleged that she was ousted from her matrimonial home but after compromise, she was allowed to stay at her matrimonial home. tioner that she later discovered that was maintaining an illicit relationship with respondent . Thereafter, her harassment intensified at the hands of her husband i.e. laws. On 22.11.2023, the petitioner was physically assaulted, wrongfully confined and prevented from seeking police assistance. On 23.11.2023, when the mother of the petitioner intervened, she too was beaten. Thereafter, written complaints were submitted to the police (copy whereof has been appended as Annexures P further alleged that, despite and oral assurance that the custody of the minor children would be restored to the petitioner, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home during the night of 22/23.11.2023 and her children were wrongfully retained by private ince then, the petitioner has been denied access to her minor sons. Thereafter, the petitioner made number of complaints before the police authorities and women Cell (Copies whereof have been annexed as 5 with the instant petition), no action have been taken Owing to the deliberate inaction by the police authorities, who are acting under the influence of respondent No.2, the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this Court by way of the petition in hand. laws. Despite providing on 10.11.2023 to maintain peace, the maltreatment continued. The petitioner alleged that she was ousted from her matrimonial home but after tioner that she later discovered that elationship with respondent . Thereafter, her harassment intensified at the hands of her husband i.e. ner was physically assaulted, wrongfully confined and prevented from seeking police assistance. On 23.11.2023, when the mother of the petitioner intervened, she too was beaten. Thereafter, written complaints were been appended as Annexures P-1 despite and oral assurance that the custody of the minor children would be restored to the petitioner, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home during the private ince then, the petitioner has been denied access to her minor sons. Thereafter, the petitioner made number of complaints before the police authorities and women Cell (Copies whereof have been annexed as ction have been taken. Owing to the deliberate inaction by the police authorities, who are acting under the influence of respondent No.2, the petitioner was left with no MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 (v) the parties were referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but the same did not fructify. for hearing before this Court. 3. children in question in utmost need of the love, care and affection of their mother. However, the children in question the petitioner thereby depriving them of the motherly care. Furthermore the conduct of the private respondents amounts to a blatant violation of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship preferential right to the mother for the custody of the minor children below the age of five years. mother has sufficient economic resources available at her end and she has never ever According to learned counsel, the forcible deprivation of custody of the children in question settled principles of law. relied upon the judgments Tiwari vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another, 1990 AIR (Supreme Court) 1156; Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2020(3) SCC 67; Vasudha Sethi & Ors Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. PLR 755; Mansi vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. 690-2024 During the pendency of the present petition before this Court, the parties were referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but the same did not fructify. It is in the above backdrop that the instant petition has come up for hearing before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner children in question are of tender age and, at this stage of growth, they are in utmost need of the love, care and affection of their mother. However, the children in question have been forcibly and unlawfully snatched away from the petitioner thereby depriving them of the motherly care. Furthermore the conduct of the private respondents amounts to a blatant violation of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship preferential right to the mother for the custody of the minor children below the age of five years. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner mother has sufficient economic resources available at her end and she has never ever sought for any financial support from the respondent According to learned counsel, the forcible deprivation of custody of the children in question by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law. To buttress his relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Tiwari vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another, 1990 AIR (Supreme Court) 1156; Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2020(3) SCC 67; Vasudha Sethi & Ors. Vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar & Anr. 2022(2) RCR (Civil) 32; Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. PLR 755; Mansi vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. 3 ency of the present petition before this Court, the parties were referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court It is in the above backdrop that the instant petition has come up Learned counsel for the petitioner-mother has iterated that are of tender age and, at this stage of growth, they are in utmost need of the love, care and affection of their mother. However, the en forcibly and unlawfully snatched away from the petitioner thereby depriving them of the motherly care. Furthermore the conduct of the private respondents amounts to a blatant violation of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which clearly gives preferential right to the mother for the custody of the minor children below Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner mother has sufficient economic resources available at her end and she has sought for any financial support from the respondent-husband. According to learned counsel, the forcible deprivation of custody of the by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Manju Tiwari vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another, 1990 AIR (Supreme Court) 1156; Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2020(3) SCC 67; Vasudha . Vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar & Anr. 2022(2) RCR (Civil) 32; Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2023(1) PLR 755; Mansi vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. passed in CRWP-7332 ency of the present petition before this Court, the parties were referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, It is in the above backdrop that the instant petition has come up mother has iterated that are of tender age and, at this stage of growth, they are in utmost need of the love, care and affection of their mother. However, the en forcibly and unlawfully snatched away from the petitioner thereby depriving them of the motherly care. Furthermore the conduct of the private respondents amounts to a blatant violation of Section clearly gives preferential right to the mother for the custody of the minor children below Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner- mother has sufficient economic resources available at her end and she has husband. According to learned counsel, the forcible deprivation of custody of the by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to arguments, learned counsel has Manju Tiwari vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another, 1990 AIR (Supreme Court) 1156; Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2020(3) SCC 67; Vasudha . Vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar & Anr. 2022(2) RCR (Civil) 32; 2023(1) 7332- MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 2022, decided on 07.11.2022 and Neha vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2 RCR(Civil) 643 hand, is entreated for. 4. submitted that the present petition is misconceived and filed only to harass the respondent exaggerated and afterthought which is aimed at maligning the reputation of the respondent No.2 and his family. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has voluntarily abandoned accord. Furthermore, the custody of the respondent No.2 for. Learned counsel has further iterated that welfare of the children is the paramount consideration case, requires that the custody remains with the respondent counsel has further submitted that the respondent under Sections 7, 8 and 1 Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 referred to as ‘ (herein) as guardian of the that since Family Court, the present score alone. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Court titled as Ors. 2024(9) SCC 382, Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors., 2024 AIR 690-2024 2022, decided on 07.11.2022 and Neha vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2 RCR(Civil) 643. On the strength of these submissions, grant of is entreated for. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the present petition is misconceived and filed only to harass respondent-father. The allegations levelled by the petitioner are false, exaggerated and afterthought which is aimed at maligning the reputation of the respondent No.2 and his family. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has voluntarily abandoned her matrimonial home on her own Furthermore, the custody of the respondent No.2-father and his family where they are being properly cared for. Learned counsel has further iterated that elfare of the children is the paramount consideration case, requires that the custody remains with the respondent counsel has further submitted that the respondent under Sections 7, 8 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 referred to as ‘Family Court petition’) for appointment of respondent (herein) as guardian of the children in question that since the said petition is pending adjudication before the concerned Family Court, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-father has relied upon the judgment Court titled as Somprabha Rana & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2024(9) SCC 382, Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors., 2024 AIR 4 2022, decided on 07.11.2022 and Neha vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2020(4) On the strength of these submissions, grant of petition in learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the present petition is misconceived and filed only to harass father. The allegations levelled by the petitioner are false, exaggerated and afterthought which is aimed at maligning the reputation of the respondent No.2 and his family. According to learned counsel, the her matrimonial home on her own Furthermore, the custody of the children in question is with the father and his family where they are being properly cared for. Learned counsel has further iterated that in the custody matters, the elfare of the children is the paramount consideration which, in the present case, requires that the custody remains with the respondent-father. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent-father has filed a petition 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter for appointment of respondent-father children in question. Learned counsel has argued petition is pending adjudication before the concerned petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the r has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Somprabha Rana & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2024(9) SCC 382, Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors., 2024 AIR 020(4) petition in learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the present petition is misconceived and filed only to harass father. The allegations levelled by the petitioner are false, exaggerated and afterthought which is aimed at maligning the reputation of the respondent No.2 and his family. According to learned counsel, the her matrimonial home on her own is with the father and his family where they are being properly cared in the custody matters, the which, in the present Learned father has filed a petition 1890 read with (hereinafter father counsel has argued petition is pending adjudication before the concerned petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the s of the Hon’ble Supreme Somprabha Rana & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2024(9) SCC 382, Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors., 2024 AIR MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 Supreme Court, 2344, Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Tewari and others, 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 104 and Sumedha Nagpal vs. State of Delhi & Ors., 2000(9) SCC 745 the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. 4.1. hand and learned State counsel has raised submission(s) accordingly. 4.2. present in person nor any counsel has appeared on her behalf. 5. perused the available record. 6. petition is as to whether a writ ought to be the children in quest 7. refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Punjab and others = 2025:PHHC:113490, judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as vs. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, 1982 AIR Supreme Court 792; Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 591; Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2017(3) Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 104; Antonio Zalba vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 3434; Rajeshwari Chandrasek 2023 (12) SCC 472; Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. 2024 AIR Supreme 690-2024 Supreme Court, 2344, Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Tewari and others, 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 104 and Sumedha Nagpal vs. State of Delhi & Ors., 2000(9) SCC 745. On the basis of aforesaid submission the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. State of Punjab is not actually a contesti hand and learned State counsel has raised submission(s) accordingly. Respondent No.3 was served. However, neither she present in person nor any counsel has appeared on her behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. The seminal issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether a writ ought to be children in question, in favour of the petitioner Before delving into the merits of the refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Punjab and others = 2025:PHHC:113490, judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as vs. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, 1982 AIR Supreme Court 792; Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 591; Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2017(3) Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2017 (3) RCR (Civil) 104; Jose Antonio Zalba Diez Del Corral alias Jose Antonio Zalba vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 3434; Rajeshwari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2023 (12) SCC 472; Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. 2024 AIR Supreme 5 Supreme Court, 2344, Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 104 and Sumedha Nagpal vs. State On the basis of aforesaid submission the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. State of Punjab is not actually a contesting party in the lis hand and learned State counsel has raised submission(s) accordingly. Respondent No.3 was served. However, neither she has come present in person nor any counsel has appeared on her behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The seminal issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether a writ ought to be granted, vesting the custody of in favour of the petitioner-mother. Before delving into the merits of the lis, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Veerpal Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others = 2025:PHHC:113490, wherein, after relying upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor vs. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, 1982 AIR Supreme Court 792; Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 591; Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2017(3) RCR (Civil) 798; Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, Jose Antonio Zalba Diez Del Corral alias Jose Antonio Zalba vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC ar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2023 (12) SCC 472; Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. 2024 AIR Supreme Prasad Tewari and others, 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 104 and Sumedha Nagpal vs. State On the basis of aforesaid submissions, lis in as come I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The seminal issue that arises for consideration in the present vesting the custody of it would be apposite to Veerpal Kaur vs. State of the Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor vs. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, 1982 AIR Supreme Court 792; Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 591; Nithya Anand RCR (Civil) 798; Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, Jose Antonio Zalba Diez Del Corral alias Jose Antonio Zalba vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC ar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2023 (12) SCC 472; Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. 2024 AIR Supreme MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 Court 2344 RCR (Civil) 98 Pradesh & O 690-2024 Court 2344 and Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and others, 2024(4) RCR (Civil) 98 and Somprabha Rana & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2024 (9) SCC 382, has held as under: “16. As a sequitur to the above rumination, the following postulates emerge: I. The High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus in minor child custody matter is predicated on the basic namely, the minor child’s custody is demonstrably appropriate cases, the High Court may relax this jurisdictional prerequisite, in the interest of welfare of minor child. II. The writ of Habeas Corpus is not a s comprehensive and evidence based procedures available under applicable guardianship statutes (such as Guardianship Act, 1956; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 matter of general judicial principle, the writ Court ought to ordinarily exercise restraint and defer dispute(s) to statutory forums unless accentuating circumstances necessitate such intervention by High Court III. In all matters relating to the custody of minor child, the paramount consideration is the welfare of such child. parens patriae jurisdiction; the High Court may, in appropriate cases, upon a holistic examination of facts, take an that the custodial arrangement serves the best interest of the child, superseding the adversarial claims of the parties. IV. In furtherance of a minor child’s welfare, the writ Court may issue interim order(s) concerning cus warranted by exigencies of the situation, ensuring that the minor child’s well being remains the ultimate determinant of justice and thereafter refer parties to remedy(s) before statutory forum(s) for final/further determination of the lis. V. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. No inflexible and comprehensive guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic powers. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of this jurisdiction by the High Court shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 6 Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and others, 2024(4) Somprabha Rana & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya has held as under: As a sequitur to the above rumination, the following postulates High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus in minor child custody matter is predicated on the basic jurisdictional fact, namely, the minor child’s custody is demonstrably illegal/unlawful. In appropriate cases, the High Court may relax this jurisdictional welfare of minor child. The writ of Habeas Corpus is not a substitute for the comprehensive and evidence based procedures available under applicable guardianship statutes (such as Hindu Minority and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 etc.). As a matter of general judicial principle, the writ Court ought to ordinarily exercise restraint and defer dispute(s) to statutory forums unless accentuating circumstances necessitate such intervention by High Court In all matters relating to the custody of minor child, the welfare of such child. In exercise of its jurisdiction; the High Court may, in appropriate cases, upon a holistic examination of facts, take an inquisitional role to ensure that the custodial arrangement serves the best interest of the child, superseding the adversarial claims of the parties. In furtherance of a minor child’s welfare, the writ Court may issue interim order(s) concerning custody and other incidental aspects as warranted by exigencies of the situation, ensuring that the minor child’s well being remains the ultimate determinant of justice and thereafter refer parties to remedy(s) before statutory forum(s) for final/further The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. No inflexible and comprehensive guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of this jurisdiction by the High Court shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by the High Court in the facts and Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and others, 2024(4) Somprabha Rana & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya As a sequitur to the above rumination, the following postulates High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus in jurisdictional fact, illegal/unlawful. In appropriate cases, the High Court may relax this jurisdictional ubstitute for the comprehensive and evidence based procedures available under Hindu Minority and c.). As a matter of general judicial principle, the writ Court ought to ordinarily exercise restraint and defer dispute(s) to statutory forums unless accentuating circumstances necessitate such intervention by High Court In all matters relating to the custody of minor child, the In exercise of its jurisdiction; the High Court may, in appropriate cases, inquisitional role to ensure that the custodial arrangement serves the best interest of the child, In furtherance of a minor child’s welfare, the writ Court may issue tody and other incidental aspects as warranted by exigencies of the situation, ensuring that the minor child’s well being remains the ultimate determinant of justice and thereafter refer parties to remedy(s) before statutory forum(s) for final/further The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction has unbridled, unfettered and plenary powers. No inflexible and comprehensive guidelines can conceivably be enumerated governing the exercise of these intrinsic is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of such exercise of this jurisdiction by the High Court shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by the High Court in the facts and MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 judgment with any further case law. 8. paramount legislature, in its wisdom has, under Section 6 Guardianship Act, 1956 child who has not completed the age of the mother. recognition of settled principles that children of such a tender age need of maternal affection, their holistic development. of the wedlock of the petitioner born on 22.01.2022 and 01.03.2023 respectively. The filed in January, 2024. Hence the children in question respectively about 03 years mandate enunciated in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guar Act, 1956, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of 05 years, ordinarily ought to be with the mother. From the material brought forth, the petitioner economic deprivation. The respo profession. Further, respondent having filed 690-2024 This Court does not deem it a judgment with any further case law. Indubitably, in custody matters pertaining to minor child, paramount consideration for Court is welfare of minor child. The legislature, in its wisdom has, under Section 6 Guardianship Act, 1956, explicitly recognized that the custody of a minor child who has not completed the age of five the mother. The statutory mandate is not an arbitrary classification, but a ion of settled principles that children of such a tender age need of maternal affection, nurture and care, which are indispensible for holistic development. It is not in dispute that the minor sons, of the wedlock of the petitioner-mother and respondent No.2 born on 22.01.2022 and 01.03.2023 respectively. The filed in January, 2024. Hence, at the time of filing of the children in question were aged about respectively. At the time of disposal of the petition in hand, they 03 years, 07 months & 02 years, mandate enunciated in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guar Act, 1956, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of 05 , ordinarily ought to be with the mother. From the material brought forth, the petitioner-mother does not appear to be suffering from any economic deprivation. The respondent-father is shown to be a trucker by profession. Further, another plank of the ground undertaken by the respondent-father for declining of the instant petition is the factum of his filed the Family Court petition which was filed in May, 2025 i.e 7 This Court does not deem it appropriate to burden the present in custody matters pertaining to minor child, for Court is welfare of minor child. The legislature, in its wisdom has, under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and , explicitly recognized that the custody of a minor five years, shall ordinarily rest with The statutory mandate is not an arbitrary classification, but a ion of settled principles that children of such a tender age stand in nurture and care, which are indispensible for It is not in dispute that the minor sons, born out mother and respondent No.2-father, were born on 22.01.2022 and 01.03.2023 respectively. The petition in hand was at the time of filing of the petition in hand ere aged about 01 year, 11 months & 10 months . At the time of disposal of the petition in hand, they are aged , 06 months. As per the statutory mandate enunciated in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of 05 , ordinarily ought to be with the mother. From the material brought mother does not appear to be suffering from any father is shown to be a trucker by plank of the ground undertaken by the father for declining of the instant petition is the factum of his which was filed in May, 2025 i.e ppropriate to burden the present the for Court is welfare of minor child. The Hindu Minority and , explicitly recognized that the custody of a minor , shall ordinarily rest with The statutory mandate is not an arbitrary classification, but a stand in nurture and care, which are indispensible for out father, were was in hand, 10 months aged . As per the statutory dianship Act, 1956, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of 05 , ordinarily ought to be with the mother. From the material brought mother does not appear to be suffering from any father is shown to be a trucker by plank of the ground undertaken by the father for declining of the instant petition is the factum of his which was filed in May, 2025 i.e. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 much after the filing of the 2024. The respondent of the said petition being pending adjudication. Indubitably, the welfare of the children issue of their custody mother. From the totality of the factual in view of the petitioner nothing having petitioner question as also the vis-à-vis the Court deems it appropriate with the mother, for the 9. disposed off in the following terms: (i) in question the concerned Family Court at Pathankot in the pending adjudication before it. (ii) before the concerned Family Court at Pathankot on respondent petitioner concerned Family Court, Pathankot is directed to take steps for handing 690-2024 much after the filing of the petition in hand 2024. The respondent-father, thus, cannot be permitted to have any benefit of the said petition being pending adjudication. Indubitably, the welfare of children in question is the paramount consideration for delving into the issue of their custody which in present case is in favour of petitioner From the totality of the factual milieu in view of the children in question being less than 05 years of age, the petitioner-mother not being suffering from any economic deprivation, having brought forth at the end of the respondent petitioner-mother will not be able to take good care of the as also the Family Court petition vis the petition in hand having been instituted in January, 2024; this Court deems it appropriate that custody of with the mother, for the nonce. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, disposed off in the following terms: The petitioner-mother is held entitled to custody of the in question subject to adjudication of the issue of erned Family Court at Pathankot in the pending adjudication before it. The petitioner-mother and the respondent before the concerned Family Court at Pathankot on respondent-father shall hand-over the custody of the minor children to the petitioner-mother. In case the respondent concerned Family Court, Pathankot is directed to take steps for handing 8 petition in hand which was instituted in January, father, thus, cannot be permitted to have any benefit of the said petition being pending adjudication. Indubitably, the welfare of is the paramount consideration for delving into the which in present case is in favour of petitioner milieu of the case in hand; especially being less than 05 years of age, the mother not being suffering from any economic deprivation, brought forth at the end of the respondent-father that the mother will not be able to take good care of the children in Family Court petition having been filed in May, 2025 having been instituted in January, 2024; this that custody of children in question ought to be In view of the prevenient ratiocination, the petition in hand mother is held entitled to custody of the children subject to adjudication of the issue of interim/final custody by erned Family Court at Pathankot in the Family Court petition mother and the respondent-father shall appear before the concerned Family Court at Pathankot on 15.09.2025 wherein the over the custody of the minor children to the mother. In case the respondent-father does not do so, the concerned Family Court, Pathankot is directed to take steps for handing which was instituted in January, father, thus, cannot be permitted to have any benefit of the said petition being pending adjudication. Indubitably, the welfare of is the paramount consideration for delving into the which in present case is in favour of petitioner- especially being less than 05 years of age, the mother not being suffering from any economic deprivation, father that the children in having been filed in May, 2025 having been instituted in January, 2024; this ought to be petition in hand is children custody by Family Court petition father shall appear .09.2025 wherein the over the custody of the minor children to the father does not do so, the concerned Family Court, Pathankot is directed to take steps for handing- MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRWP-690 over the custody of the children in question to Superintendent of Police, Pathankot is directed to render all assistance to the said Family Court in this regard. (iii) continue till a decision is taken by the concerned F interim custody of the children in question. Parties are at liberty to raise their respective plea(s) before the said Family Court in this regard. Needless to say that the said Family Court shall take a decision thereupon without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the instant judgment. (iv) September 05 Ajay/mahavir 690-2024 over the custody of the children in question to Superintendent of Police, Pathankot is directed to render all assistance to the said Family Court in this regard. The above arrangement shall be interim in nature & would continue till a decision is taken by the concerned F interim custody of the children in question. Parties are at liberty to raise their respective plea(s) before the said Family Court in this regard. Needless to say that the said Family Court shall take a decision thereupon without g influenced by any observation made by this Court in the instant judgment. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. September 05, 2025 /mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 over the custody of the children in question to the petitioner-mother. Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot is directed to render all assistance to the arrangement shall be interim in nature & would continue till a decision is taken by the concerned Family Court regarding interim custody of the children in question. Parties are at liberty to raise their respective plea(s) before the said Family Court in this regard. Needless to say that the said Family Court shall take a decision thereupon without g influenced by any observation made by this Court in the instant Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot is directed to render all assistance to the arrangement shall be interim in nature & would amily Court regarding interim custody of the children in question. Parties are at liberty to raise their respective plea(s) before the said Family Court in this regard. Needless to say that the said Family Court shall take a decision thereupon without g influenced by any observation made by this Court in the instant Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.09.05 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment