IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPCRL No.130 of 2025 Kartika Chandra Giri …. Petitioner Represented by Adv. Mr. Bikash Swain, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. Ms. Biswabara Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 06.07.2026 02. 1. The petitioner has resorted to the instant forum with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to be issued for custody of the minor child, who is admittedly living along with his biological mother. 2. It is an attempt to settle the personal scores using the minor son as weapon, which is not appreciated. The averments in the instant writ petition proceed on the premise that after death of the petitioner’s son, who was married to opposite party No.5, she left the matrimonial house on the day of funeral and last rites by taking away all the gold ornaments and cash from the matrimonial home. The quantum of the money and the value of the gold ornaments have also been vividly narrated in the instant writ petition. 3. It is evident from the averments made in the instant writ petition that the petitioner intended to achieve the purpose indirectly which he could achieve it by taking recourse to the provisions of the statute governing the field and the forum in this regard is created. 4. The Court should not ordinarily entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing the writ of habeas corpus and disrupting the custody of a minor child, who is aged about four years, from his biological mother to the grandparents. Even the Court enjoins parens patriae jurisdiction, yet cannot ignore the age of a child and his custody with the mother. Such custody cannot be said to be unlawful and/or illegal. 5. In such view of the matter, we refuse to exercise the jurisdiction so vested upon us. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. 6. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not prevent the petitioner to exhaust the remedy, if provided in the statute before the appropriate forum. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin/PA