CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND Monika Poonia State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Roshneel Singh Brar, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Mr. Navrajdeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Akash Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 5. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed of the Constitution of Indi for obtaining the custody of illegal custody of his father/respondent No. 5. 2. Brief facts of the case the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. as per Hindu rites and rituals was born on 23.02.2020 by respondent No. 5, the petitioner left her matrimonial house on 27.03.2020 and started living separately. Subsequently, due to irretrievable breakdown of the 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Roshneel Singh Brar, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Navrajdeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Akash Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 5. MANISHA BATRA, J. The present petition has been filed of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for obtaining the custody of her minor son namely of his father/respondent No. 5. Brief facts of the case as set up by the petitioner the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, a male child, namely Vihaan, 23.02.2020, who is the alleged dete by respondent No. 5, the petitioner left her matrimonial house on 27.03.2020 and started living separately. Subsequently, due to irretrievable breakdown of the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 02.08.2025 Pronounced on : 05.08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Roshneel Singh Brar, Advocate and Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate with The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article a seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus namely Vihaan, who is alleged to be in up by the petitioner are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 5-Naveen Dahiya on 17.01.2017 the said wedlock, a male child, namely Vihaan, etenue. Due to abuse and ill treatment by respondent No. 5, the petitioner left her matrimonial house on 27.03.2020 and started living separately. Subsequently, due to irretrievable breakdown of the 2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 02.08.2025 Pronounced on : 05.08.2025 ...Petitioner under Article 226 a seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus is alleged to be in are that the marriage of 17.01.2017 the said wedlock, a male child, namely Vihaan, nue. Due to abuse and ill treatment by respondent No. 5, the petitioner left her matrimonial house on 27.03.2020 and started living separately. Subsequently, due to irretrievable breakdown of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) marriage, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 got their m petition under Section 13 dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kharkhoda. During the said proceedings, it was agreed by the parties custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner/mother and respondent No. 5/father shall have no visitation right. However, out of good will, the petitioner allowed him to meet their son on a few occasions. On 05.06.2025, respondent No. 5 came to see the child and was allowed by the petitioner for the same. However, he deceitfully removed the child from the lawful custody of the petitioner and since then, he has kept the child with him. Several attempts to resolve the matter amicably were made but all in vain. A complaint was also made on 09.06.2025. Instead of handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, whereby restraining the petitioner from recovering the custody of the child except through due process of law, vide order dated 20.06.2025. application before the Family Cour proceedings against respondent for violating its order. However, the child is still in illegal custody of respondent No. 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has has forcibly taken the custody of the minor respondent No. 5 well as the child mother for his u petitioner and she has been the sole caregiver of the child. Respondent No. 5 has 2025 (O&M) marriage, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 got their m petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide decree of divorce dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, During the said proceedings, it was agreed by the parties custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner/mother and respondent No. 5/father shall have no visitation right. However, out of good will, the petitioner allowed him to meet their son on a few occasions. On 05.06.2025, respondent No. 5 me to see the child and was allowed by the petitioner for the same. However, he deceitfully removed the child from the lawful custody of the petitioner and since then, he has kept the child with him. Several attempts to resolve the matter amicably e but all in vain. A complaint was also made on 09.06.2025. Instead of handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, whereby interim relief was granted in favour of respondent No. 5 restraining the petitioner from recovering the custody of the child except through due process of law, vide order dated 20.06.2025. application before the Family Court, Kharkhoda seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent for violating its order. However, the child is still in illegal custody of respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the custody of the minor child 5 is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to th child as he was of tender age and needed the care and company of upbringing. Since his birth, the child has been in custody of the petitioner and she has been the sole caregiver of the child. Respondent No. 5 has -2- marriage, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 got their marriage dissolved by filing a B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide decree of divorce dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, During the said proceedings, it was agreed by the parties that custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner/mother and respondent No. 5/father shall have no visitation right. However, out of good will, the petitioner allowed him to meet their son on a few occasions. On 05.06.2025, respondent No. 5 me to see the child and was allowed by the petitioner for the same. However, he deceitfully removed the child from the lawful custody of the petitioner and since then, he has kept the child with him. Several attempts to resolve the matter amicably e but all in vain. A complaint was also made on 09.06.2025. Instead of handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), interim relief was granted in favour of respondent No. 5 restraining the petitioner from recovering the custody of the child except through due The petitioner has even filed an t, Kharkhoda seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent for violating its order. However, the child is still in Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. child from the petitioner and the act of is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to the petitioner as tender age and needed the care and company of Since his birth, the child has been in custody of the petitioner and she has been the sole caregiver of the child. Respondent No. 5 has arriage dissolved by filing a B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide decree of divorce dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, that the custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner/mother and respondent No. 5/father shall have no visitation right. However, out of good will, the petitioner allowed him to meet their son on a few occasions. On 05.06.2025, respondent No. 5 me to see the child and was allowed by the petitioner for the same. However, he deceitfully removed the child from the lawful custody of the petitioner and since then, he has kept the child with him. Several attempts to resolve the matter amicably e but all in vain. A complaint was also made on 09.06.2025. Instead of handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), interim relief was granted in favour of respondent No. 5 restraining the petitioner from recovering the custody of the child except through due The petitioner has even filed an t, Kharkhoda seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent for violating its order. However, the child is still in submitted that respondent No. 5 and the act of e petitioner as tender age and needed the care and company of his Since his birth, the child has been in custody of the petitioner and she has been the sole caregiver of the child. Respondent No. 5 has MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) violated the terms of decree of divorce, settled before the Family Court, as mentioned above. The petitioner he was pursuing his studies. However, by removing him from the lawful custody of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 has seriously posed danger to his overall development. While and not maintaining him properly for release of the alleged detenue petitioner has relied upon the Orrisa and others, 2024 (7) SCC 564, Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan, 2020 (3) SCC 67, Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2019 (7) SCC 42, Parminder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab 2025 NCPHHC 73475, Joginder Singh Sekhon and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 NCPHHC 73684, Camila Carolina de Matos Vilas Boas vs. Union of India, 2025 NCPHHC 51547, Anju Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2024 NCPHHC 106868 Online All 1475. 4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the directions issued by this Court shall be complied with. 5. Reply, on behalf of respondent No. denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, respondent No. 5 custody of the child respondent No. 5 of him, being his submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to 2025 (O&M) violated the terms of decree of divorce, settled before the Family Court, as mentioned above. The petitioner had got the child admitted in a reputed school and he was pursuing his studies. However, by removing him from the lawful custody of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 has seriously posed danger to his overall While submitting that respondent No. and not maintaining him properly, it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued of the alleged detenue. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities cited as Orrisa and others, 2024 (7) SCC 564, Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan, 2020 (3) SCC 67, Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2019 (7) SCC 42, Parminder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab 2025 NCPHHC 73475, Joginder Singh Sekhon and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 NCPHHC 73684, Camila Carolina de Matos Vilas Boas vs. Union of India, 2025 NCPHHC 51547, Anju Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2024 NCPHHC 106868 and Smt. Meenakshi vs. State of U. P. (Allahabad), 2020 SC . Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the directions issued by this Court shall be complied with. Reply, on behalf of respondent No. denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, 5 is natural father of the child, he cannot be stated to be in illegal child and the present petition is not maintainable 5 has never mistreated the child and r his father and is also discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to -3- violated the terms of decree of divorce, settled before the Family Court, as had got the child admitted in a reputed school and he was pursuing his studies. However, by removing him from the lawful custody of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 has seriously posed danger to his overall submitting that respondent No. 5 is mistreating the minor child it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued . To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the authorities cited as Shazia Aman Khan vs. the State of Orrisa and others, 2024 (7) SCC 564, Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan, 2020 (3) SCC 67, Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, 2019 (7) SCC 42, Parminder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 NCPHHC 73475, Joginder Singh Sekhon and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 NCPHHC 73684, Camila Carolina de Matos Vilas Boas vs. Union of India, 2025 NCPHHC 51547, Anju Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2024 Smt. Meenakshi vs. State of U. P. (Allahabad), 2020 SC Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the directions issued by this Court shall be complied with. Reply, on behalf of respondent No.5, has been filed, wherein while denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, it is submitted that since , he cannot be stated to be in illegal and the present petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that and rather, he is properly taking care discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to the petitioner and she violated the terms of decree of divorce, settled before the Family Court, as had got the child admitted in a reputed school and he was pursuing his studies. However, by removing him from the lawful custody of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 has seriously posed danger to his overall child it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued . To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the Shazia Aman Khan vs. the State of Orrisa and others, 2024 (7) SCC 564, Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan, 2020 (3) SCC 67, Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and and others, 2025 NCPHHC 73475, Joginder Singh Sekhon and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 NCPHHC 73684, Camila Carolina de Matos Vilas Boas vs. Union of India, 2025 NCPHHC 51547, Anju Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2024 Smt. Meenakshi vs. State of U. P. (Allahabad), 2020 SC Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that the d, wherein while that since , he cannot be stated to be in illegal t is submitted that ather, he is properly taking care discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also the petitioner and she MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) had left the company of respondent out of her own free was beaten by her father on 05.06.2025 and it was her who called him to take custody of the child as she was not able to maintain him. The child was to him in the presence of two witnesses, who have sworn affidavits in this regard. Learned counsel for respondent No. Punjab and others, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 46 and others, CRWP of the child with father cannot be held illegal or unlawful corpus is a prerogative remedy and the same should be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. way of getting decree of divorce under Section 13 relevant part of the decree of divorce dated 08.02.2023 read as under: 8. Respondent No. 5 has not disputed the aforesaid arrangement arrived at between them before the Family Court, Kharkhoda on 08.02.2023. 2025 (O&M) had left the company of respondent out of her own free was beaten by her father on 05.06.2025 and it was her who called him to take custody of the child as she was not able to maintain him. The child was to him in the presence of two witnesses, who have sworn affidavits in this regard. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has relied upon Punjab and others, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 46 and nd others, CRWP-4478-2025, decided on 02.05.2025 of the child with father cannot be held illegal or unlawful corpus is a prerogative remedy and the same should be exercised sparingly and only nary circumstances. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. way of getting decree of divorce under Section 13 relevant part of the decree of divorce dated 08.02.2023 read as under: “5. They have settled all their claims of dowry and future maintenance, etc. They custody of the child namely Master Vihaan, aged about three years shall remain with Petitioner number two, Monika Poonia, with whom, he is already living and Petitioner number one shall have no visitation right. They have also resolved that in regard to the custody of the child or maintenance of child, no litigation shall be filed in future by the parties. They have also dissolved that now there is no claim left between them towards future maintenance, alimony, or any right in t Respondent No. 5 has not disputed the aforesaid arrangement arrived at between them before the Family Court, Kharkhoda on 08.02.2023. -4- had left the company of respondent out of her own free will. In fact, the petitioner was beaten by her father on 05.06.2025 and it was her who called him to take custody of the child as she was not able to maintain him. The child was handed over to him in the presence of two witnesses, who have sworn affidavits in this regard. has relied upon Manisha Gupta vs. State of and Pinki Rani vs. State of Haryana 2025, decided on 02.05.2025 to contend that the custody of the child with father cannot be held illegal or unlawful and that writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative remedy and the same should be exercised sparingly and only nary circumstances. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 have parted ways by way of getting decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. relevant part of the decree of divorce dated 08.02.2023 read as under: 5. They have settled all their claims of dowry and future They have also resolved that the custody of the child namely Master Vihaan, aged about three years shall remain with Petitioner number two, Monika Poonia, with whom, he is already living and Petitioner number one shall have no visitation right. resolved that in regard to the custody of the child or maintenance of child, no litigation shall be filed in future by the parties. They have also dissolved that now there is no claim left between them towards future maintenance, alimony, or any right in the property. Respondent No. 5 has not disputed the aforesaid arrangement arrived at between them before the Family Court, Kharkhoda on 08.02.2023. Respondent No. In fact, the petitioner was beaten by her father on 05.06.2025 and it was her who called him to take handed over to him in the presence of two witnesses, who have sworn affidavits in this regard. Manisha Gupta vs. State of Pinki Rani vs. State of Haryana the custody and that writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative remedy and the same should be exercised sparingly and only nary circumstances. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have parted ways by B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The 5. They have settled all their claims of dowry and future have also resolved that the custody of the child namely Master Vihaan, aged about three years shall remain with Petitioner number two, Monika Poonia, with whom, he is already living and Petitioner number one shall have no visitation right. resolved that in regard to the custody of the child or maintenance of child, no litigation shall be filed in future by the parties. They have also dissolved that now there is no claim left between them towards future Respondent No. 5 has not disputed the aforesaid arrangement arrived at Respondent No. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) 5 had even agreed to not to file any litigation seeking custody of the child visitation rights at all petitioner had subsequently allowed him to meet the child and respondent No. 5, by taking advantage of the same, has removed the child from the custody of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Such writ is primarily issued calling upon a person who had detained another to produce the detained individual in order to let the Court to know if there is no legal justification for such detention. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that the detention is unlawful, the confinement cannot be permitted and consequently direct context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras reported as Kuppammal and others vs. The Dist. Collector and Dist. Magistrate, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvall Nos.11,41,66, 76 and 103 of 2000 a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention is not authorised or under the shelter of an detention ordered is void, where the authority who had ordered detention is not the one specified or authorised in that behalf, where though the specified authority ordering detention is competent and also acts un had failed to follow the procedure prescribed in that behalf and in some cases even when the authority had followed the procedure prescribed if action of said authority is vitiated by one or more of the defects or infi principles of administrative law such as 2025 (O&M) 5 had even agreed to not to file any litigation seeking custody of the child sitation rights at all. However, it seems that on some humanitarian grounds, the petitioner had subsequently allowed him to meet the child and respondent No. 5, by taking advantage of the same, has removed the child from the custody of the The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Such writ is primarily issued calling upon a who had detained another to produce the detained individual in order to let the Court to know on what ground a detenue has been confined and set him at liberty if there is no legal justification for such detention. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that the detention is unlawful, the confinement cannot be permitted and consequently direction has to be issued to set the detenue at liberty. context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras Kuppammal and others vs. The Dist. Collector and Dist. Magistrate, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur and Others, 76 and 103 of 2000, wherein it was observed that the a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention is not authorised or under the shelter of any law or the detention law under which the detention ordered is void, where the authority who had ordered detention is not the one specified or authorised in that behalf, where though the specified authority ordering detention is competent and also acts un had failed to follow the procedure prescribed in that behalf and in some cases even when the authority had followed the procedure prescribed if action of said authority is vitiated by one or more of the defects or infi principles of administrative law such as abuse of power -5- 5 had even agreed to not to file any litigation seeking custody of the child. He had no , it seems that on some humanitarian grounds, the petitioner had subsequently allowed him to meet the child and respondent No. 5, by taking advantage of the same, has removed the child from the custody of the The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Such writ is primarily issued calling upon a who had detained another to produce the detained individual in order to let on what ground a detenue has been confined and set him at liberty if there is no legal justification for such detention. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that the detention is unlawful, the confinement cannot be permitted and ion has to be issued to set the detenue at liberty. Reliance in this context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras Kuppammal and others vs. The Dist. Collector and Dist. Magistrate, ur and Others, decided on 13.02.2001 in HCP wherein it was observed that the confinement of a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention y law or the detention law under which the detention ordered is void, where the authority who had ordered detention is not the one specified or authorised in that behalf, where though the specified authority ordering detention is competent and also acts under a valid law yet if such authority had failed to follow the procedure prescribed in that behalf and in some cases even when the authority had followed the procedure prescribed if action of said authority is vitiated by one or more of the defects or infirmity recognised in this respect by abuse of power, mala fides, perversity, non . He had no , it seems that on some humanitarian grounds, the petitioner had subsequently allowed him to meet the child and respondent No. 5, by taking advantage of the same, has removed the child from the custody of the The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Such writ is primarily issued calling upon a who had detained another to produce the detained individual in order to let on what ground a detenue has been confined and set him at liberty if there is no legal justification for such detention. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that the detention is unlawful, the confinement cannot be permitted and Reliance in this context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras Kuppammal and others vs. The Dist. Collector and Dist. Magistrate, HCP confinement of a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention y law or the detention law under which the detention ordered is void, where the authority who had ordered detention is not the one specified or authorised in that behalf, where though the specified authority der a valid law yet if such authority had failed to follow the procedure prescribed in that behalf and in some cases even when the authority had followed the procedure prescribed if action of said authority rmity recognised in this respect by non- MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) application of mind like. 10. Reference can further be made to wherein it was observed by not to justify or examine the legality of the custody medium through which the custody of the child is addressed court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; o be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor is by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement o by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any auth Manisha Gupta’s case (supra), relied upon by respondent No. 5, it has been held by this Court that although the custody of a child with his father cannot be held illegal or unlawful but the same should not be in breach of any order of the present case. 11. Now, adverting to the present case. The alleged detenue is in the custody of respondent No. 5, who is admittedly his natural guardian, being father. However, he has not placed anything on record to show that the with him is legal or lawful decree of divorce obtained under Section 13 on mutual consent of the parties and the terms and conditions agreed th 2025 (O&M) application of mind, arbitrariness or extraneous consideration or a fortiori reason or Reference can further be made to it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court not to justify or examine the legality of the custody medium through which the custody of the child is addressed court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; o be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor is by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement o by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any auth Manisha Gupta’s case (supra), relied upon by respondent No. 5, it has been held by this Court that although the custody of a child with his father cannot be held illegal or unlawful but the same should not be in breach of any order of the present case. Now, adverting to the present case. The alleged detenue is in the custody of respondent No. 5, who is admittedly his natural guardian, being father. However, he has not placed anything on record to show that the with him is legal or lawful and not in breach of any authority of order of law. decree of divorce obtained under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is based on mutual consent of the parties and the terms and conditions agreed th -6- extraneous consideration or a fortiori reason or Reference can further be made to Tejaswini Gaud’s case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court that habeas corpus proceeding is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceeding medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor is by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. Even in Manisha Gupta’s case (supra), relied upon by respondent No. 5, it has been held by this Court that although the custody of a child with his father cannot be held illegal or unlawful but the same should not be in breach of any order of law, which is so in Now, adverting to the present case. The alleged detenue is in the custody of respondent No. 5, who is admittedly his natural guardian, being father. However, he has not placed anything on record to show that the custody of the child and not in breach of any authority of order of law. B of the Hindu Marriage Act is based on mutual consent of the parties and the terms and conditions agreed therein have extraneous consideration or a fortiori reason or case (supra), abeas corpus proceeding is is a to the discretion of the court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy therwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor is by a person who is not n the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor Even in Manisha Gupta’s case (supra), relied upon by respondent No. 5, it has been held by this Court that although the custody of a child with his father cannot be held illegal law, which is so in Now, adverting to the present case. The alleged detenue is in the custody of respondent No. 5, who is admittedly his natural guardian, being father. custody of the child and not in breach of any authority of order of law. A B of the Hindu Marriage Act is based erein have MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-6963-2025 (O&M) binding nature on both the parties. At a later stage, none of them can run away from the same. However, in the present case, it is amply clear that respondent No.5, after procuring decree of divorce with mutual consent, has changed his stand and defiance of that order, he has taken custody of the child. This act of respondent No. 5 is hit by the principles of estoppel anything to this Court so as to believe that the petitioner was not taking proper care of the child. The petitioner is a practicing doctor, having degree of MBBS. There is nothing on record to show that she is allegations and counter allegations with regard to misbehavior and conduct of the parties to lis have also been made by them. However, at this stage, there is no need to dilate upon the same and without casting any a the petitioner or respondent No. 5 and considering the position of law as laid down in aforecited judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that deserves to have the custody of the child. 12. Acc directing the respondent No.5 to the petitioner by going to her house within a period of 10 days from today. In case respondent No. 5 doe the stipulated time, respondent No. 2 ensure the compliance of this order within a period of 02 days thereafter. 05.08.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) binding nature on both the parties. At a later stage, none of them can run away from However, in the present case, it is amply clear that respondent No.5, after procuring decree of divorce with mutual consent, has changed his stand and defiance of that order, he has taken custody of the child. This act of respondent No. 5 t by the principles of estoppel. Respondent No. 5 has not successfully shown anything to this Court so as to believe that the petitioner was not taking proper care The petitioner is a practicing doctor, having degree of MBBS. There is nothing on record to show that she is not able to maintain the child. allegations and counter allegations with regard to misbehavior and conduct of the have also been made by them. However, at this stage, there is no need to dilate upon the same and without casting any a the petitioner or respondent No. 5 and considering the position of law as laid down in aforecited judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that deserves to have the custody of the child. ordingly, the present petition is allowed. A writ of habeas corpus the respondent No.5-Naveen Dahiya to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner by going to her house within a period of 10 days from today. In case respondent No. 5 does not hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner within the stipulated time, respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Gurugram ensure the compliance of this order within a period of 02 days thereafter. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -7- binding nature on both the parties. At a later stage, none of them can run away from However, in the present case, it is amply clear that respondent No.5, after procuring decree of divorce with mutual consent, has changed his stand and defiance of that order, he has taken custody of the child. This act of respondent No. 5 . Respondent No. 5 has not successfully shown anything to this Court so as to believe that the petitioner was not taking proper care The petitioner is a practicing doctor, having degree of MBBS. There is not able to maintain the child. Certain allegations and counter allegations with regard to misbehavior and conduct of the have also been made by them. However, at this stage, there is no need to dilate upon the same and without casting any aspersion on the moral character of the petitioner or respondent No. 5 and considering the position of law as laid down in aforecited judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner ordingly, the present petition is allowed. A writ of habeas corpus Naveen Dahiya to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner by going to her house within a period of 10 days from today. In case s not hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner within Commissioner of Police, Gurugram shall ensure the compliance of this order within a period of 02 days thereafter. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No binding nature on both the parties. At a later stage, none of them can run away from However, in the present case, it is amply clear that respondent No.5, after procuring decree of divorce with mutual consent, has changed his stand and in defiance of that order, he has taken custody of the child. This act of respondent No. 5 . Respondent No. 5 has not successfully shown anything to this Court so as to believe that the petitioner was not taking proper care The petitioner is a practicing doctor, having degree of MBBS. There is Certain allegations and counter allegations with regard to misbehavior and conduct of the have also been made by them. However, at this stage, there is no need spersion on the moral character of the petitioner or respondent No. 5 and considering the position of law as laid down the petitioner ordingly, the present petition is allowed. A writ of habeas corpus Naveen Dahiya to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner by going to her house within a period of 10 days from today. In case s not hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner within shall MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.06 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document