1 2025:CGHC:36740-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 14 of 2025 Smt. Vimal Dewangan W/o Shri Rudrasharan Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Churikala, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector Korba, District - Korba, C.G. 3 - Superintendent of Police Korba District- Korba, C.G. 4 - Sub divisional Officer Station Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. 5 - Station House Officer Police Station Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. 6 - Rudrasharan Dewangan S/o Bharatlal Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhadrapara, Balco, Police Station Balco, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.07 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 17:48:24 +0530 2 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to produce and to give back the custody of the minor child of the petitioner namely Bhavya Dewangan, who has been taken forcefully by respondent no.6. 10.2) Any other consequential relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and for which the petitioner is entitled, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No.6 in forcibly removing the minor child from the lawful custody of the petitioner, who is the biological mother, is illegal, arbitrary, and in gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The custody of a child below the age of five generally remains with the mother, and even otherwise, in the present case, the minor was continuously residing with the petitioner after being thrown out of the matrimonial home on 02.04.2025. He further submits that despite multiple complaints and applications submitted by the petitioner before the competent authorities, i.e. respondents No.3 3 to 5, no meaningful action has been taken by them. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent No.5 on 13.06.2025, which was summarily disposed of by issuing a receipt under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), refusing to interfere. Thereafter, applications under Sections 100 and 101 of the BNSS were also filed before respondent No.4 and complaints submitted to respondent No.3 on 17.06.2025, but all fell on deaf ears. It has been contended that the paramount consideration in matters involving custody of a minor child is the welfare of the child, which has been completely overlooked by the respondent authorities. The minor child, aged 8 years, was removed from the petitioner by way of deceit and inducement and is currently being kept against his will and without the consent of the petitioner-mother. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the intervention of this Court is necessary to ensure justice and protection of the petitioner’s legal and custodial rights over her minor son. The inaction on the part of the State and its authorities is causing immense mental agony to the petitioner and adversely affecting the well-being of the minor child. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that instant petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for seeking custody of the minor child. 4 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of relief sought by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no writ of habeas corpus can be issued in the present case, as the custody of the minor child with the respondent No.6 cannot be termed as illegal or unlawful so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7 Moreover, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious statutory remedy available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for seeking custody of the minor child by approaching the competent civil Court. The said remedy is more appropriate, adequate, and effective for adjudicating the disputed questions of custody, welfare, and guardianship of the child, which require detailed examination of facts and evidence. 8 In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu