CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 257 Silky Sharma State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Present:- Mr. for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 7. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed 226 of the Constitution of Indi corpus for obtaining the custody of is alleged to be in illegal 2. Brief facts of the case marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. on 12.03.2020 at Jalandhar 27.01.2022, who is the alleged dete marriage, her in was a habitual drunkard and used to give beatings to her. The relation of the was harassed and maltreated by him. Ultimately, she was thro matrimonial house 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Silky Sharma Versus Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 7. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 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 is alleged to be in illegal custody of respondents No. 5 to 7. Brief facts of the case as set up by the petitioner marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 12.03.2020 at Jalandhar. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 27.01.2022, who is the alleged detenue. It is alleged that shortly after the marriage, her in-laws had started to harass her. Her husband was a habitual drunkard and used to give beatings to her. The relation of the petitioner with respondent No. 5 was harassed and maltreated by him. Ultimately, she was thro matrimonial house on 29.06.2024 by snatching the minor child from her custody -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article a seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas minor son namely Narotam Sharma, who custody of respondents No. 5 to 7. as set up by the petitioner are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 5-Kamal Kishore Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on nue. It is alleged that shortly after the laws had started to harass her. Her husband-respondent No. 5 was a habitual drunkard and used to give beatings to her. The matrimonial petitioner with respondent No. 5 witnessed rough weather as she was harassed and maltreated by him. Ultimately, she was thrown out of the on 29.06.2024 by snatching the minor child from her custody 2024 (O&M) 08.05.2025 ...Respondents under Article a seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas , who are that the Kamal Kishore Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on nue. It is alleged that shortly after the respondent No. 5 matrimonial ugh weather as she wn out of the on 29.06.2024 by snatching the minor child from her custody. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) She requested to they did not do so. respondents but the police but no action was taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 5 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor of respondent No. petitioner as well as child company of his 4 is mistreating the minor a writ of habeas corpus be issued for release argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC Online P&H 4267 Punjab and others Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab 4. Status report therein and learned application was moved by the petitioner on of Police, Jalandhar against the private resp being conducted. 5. Reply, on behalf of respondent wherein while denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, submitted that since respondent No. 2024 (O&M) She requested to the private respondents to give her the custody of the child but ey did not do so. The petitioner tried to prevail good sense upon but they did not mend their ways. the police but no action was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has has forcibly taken the custody of the minor of respondent No. 5 is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to th petitioner as well as child as he was of tender age and needed the his mother for his upbringing. While treating the minor child and not maintaining him properly a writ of habeas corpus be issued for release of the alleged detenue argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2024 SCC Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC Online P&H 4267, CRWP-9996-2020, titled as Punjab and others, decided on 02.03.2021, Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2021 SCC Online P&H 1060 Status report has been filed by the respondent therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab application was moved by the petitioner on 31.07.2024 of Police, Jalandhar against the private respondents, on which, detailed inquiry is being conducted. Reply, on behalf of respondent wherein while denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, that since respondent No. 5 is natural father -2- respondents to give her the custody of the child but The petitioner tried to prevail good sense upon the private ways. The matter was also reported to Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child from the petitioner and the act is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to th tender age and needed the care and While submitting that respondent No. child and not maintaining him properly, it is urged that of the alleged detenue. To fortify hi argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2024 SCC Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC , titled as Ramita Rani vs. State of , decided on 02.03.2021, CRWP-8319-2020, titled as : 2021 SCC Online P&H 1060. has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that an 31.07.2024 before the Commissioner ondents, on which, detailed inquiry is Reply, on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 7, has also been filed, wherein while denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, it is is natural father of the child, he cannot be respondents to give her the custody of the child but the private The matter was also reported to submitted that respondent No. and the act is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to the care and submitting that respondent No. it is urged that . To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2024 SCC Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC Ramita Rani vs. State of , titled as State. It is submitted submitted that an Commissioner ondents, on which, detailed inquiry is , has also been filed, it is , he cannot be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) stated to be in illegal custody of the maintainable. I and rather, he is properly taking care of discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to the petitioner and she had left the company of respondent out of her own free Respondent No. 5 has already filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending. liable to be dismissed. authority of Hon’b : 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 93 6 of the Act, 1956 cannot be over a rebuttable one in favour of the mot rendered by the High Court of Allahabad in RCR (Civil) 258 Guardianship Act, 1956 mean ‘necessarily’. in Poonam Kalsi vs. State of Punjab and others : 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 262 Manisha Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others : 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 46 wherein it has been held that the custody of the minor child with the father as a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. The petitioner was married to respondent No. out of the wedlock, 2024 (O&M) stated to be in illegal custody of the child . It is submitted that respondent No. ather, he is properly taking care of discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to the petitioner and she had left the company of respondent out of her own free will as she Respondent No. 5 has already filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited as : 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 93 to contend that the use of word ‘ordinarily’ in Section 6 of the Act, 1956 cannot be over-emphasized as it ordains a presumption, albeit a rebuttable one in favour of the mother. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad in RCR (Civil) 258, wherein it was held that in Section Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act, 1956 mean ‘necessarily’. He has also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court Poonam Kalsi vs. State of Punjab and others : 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 262 Manisha Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others : 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 46 it has been held that the custody of the minor child with the father as a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner was married to respondent No. out of the wedlock, one male child (alleged detenue) was -3- child and the present petition is not t is submitted that respondent No. 5 has never mistreated the child ather, he is properly taking care of him, being his father and is also discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to the petitioner and she had left the company of will as she was having extra marital affair Respondent No. 5 has already filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the It is, thus, argued that the petition is Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has relied upon the le Supreme Court cited as Roxann Sharma vs. Arun Sharma to contend that the use of word ‘ordinarily’ in Section emphasized as it ordains a presumption, albeit her. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad in Amit vs. Nirmal Sahu : 2009 (5) , wherein it was held that in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and 1956), the word ‘ordinarily’ does not He has also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court Poonam Kalsi vs. State of Punjab and others : 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 262 Manisha Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others : 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 46 it has been held that the custody of the minor child with the father as a natural guardian cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 5 on 12.03.2020 one male child (alleged detenue) was born on 27.01.2022 and the present petition is not mistreated the child is also discharging his responsibilities properly. It is also submitted that even he had never caused any harassment to the petitioner and she had left the company of was having extra marital affair. Respondent No. 5 has already filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the It is, thus, argued that the petition is Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has relied upon the Roxann Sharma vs. Arun Sharma to contend that the use of word ‘ordinarily’ in Section emphasized as it ordains a presumption, albeit her. He has also relied upon a judgment Amit vs. Nirmal Sahu : 2009 (5) Hindu Minority and inarily’ does not He has also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court Poonam Kalsi vs. State of Punjab and others : 2022 (3) RCR (Civil) 262 and Manisha Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others : 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 46, it has been held that the custody of the minor child with the father as a I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and 27.01.2022. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) Since the relationship between the parties became sour, due to the reasons best known to them, they started l petitioner, respondent No. is not properly maintaining him. consideration is as to whether the custody of the 5 can be stated to be illegal, warranting issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing 8. At the outset, it may be mentioned that 1956, the custody of mother. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Act, 1890 is reproduced below: 9. On a bare reading of the above mentioned provision, i the father of a minor is his natural guardian and it is only on his demise that the mother becomes the natural guardian. 10. 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 o 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 2024 (O&M) Since the relationship between the parties became sour, due to the reasons best known to them, they started living separately. respondent No. 5 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child and is not properly maintaining him. The question that arises before this Court for consideration is as to whether the custody of the can be stated to be illegal, warranting issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing his release from his custody? At the outset, it may be mentioned that the custody of a child under the age of 05 years shall ordinarily be with the mother. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Act, 1890 is reproduced below: “6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor. The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the min person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl him, the mother: provided that not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; On a bare reading of the above mentioned provision, i the father of a minor is his natural guardian and it is only on his demise that the mother becomes the natural guardian. 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 -4- Since the relationship between the parties became sour, due to the reasons best iving separately. As per allegations of the has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child and The question that arises before this Court for consideration is as to whether the custody of the minor child with respondent No. can be stated to be illegal, warranting issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas ? At the outset, it may be mentioned that as per Section 6 of the Act, child under the age of 05 years shall ordinarily be with the mother. For ready reference, Section 6 of the Act, 1890 is reproduced below: 6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.— The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the min person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are— in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl—the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with On a bare reading of the above mentioned provision, it is clear that the father of a minor is his natural guardian and it is only on his demise that 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 n 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 Since the relationship between the parties became sour, due to the reasons best As per allegations of the has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child and The question that arises before this Court for with respondent No. can be stated to be illegal, warranting issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas Act, child under the age of 05 years shall ordinarily be with the The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his the father, and after the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with t is clear that the father of a minor is his natural guardian and it is only on his demise that 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 n 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) be permitted and consequently directi liberty. Reliance in this context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras Collector and Dist. Magistrate, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallu decided on 13.02.2001 in was observed that the 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 und 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 infir administrative law such as application of mind or like. 11. Reference can further be made to Jagdish Prasad Tiwari Supreme Court legality of the custody 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 eith 2024 (O&M) be permitted and consequently direction has to be issued to set the detenue at Reliance in this 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, Thiruvallu decided on 13.02.2001 in HCP Nos.11,41,66, was observed that the confinement of a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention is not authorised or under the shelter of 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 principles of administrative law such as abuse of power application of mind, arbitrariness or extraneous consideration or a fortiori reason Reference can further be made to Jagdish Prasad Tiwari : (2019) 7 SCC 42, wherein Supreme Court that habeas corpus proceeding is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceeding 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 -5- on has to be issued to set the detenue at Reliance in this context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the Kuppammal and others vs. The Dist. Collector and Dist. Magistrate, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur and Others HCP Nos.11,41,66, 76 and 103 of 2000, wherein it confinement of a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention is not authorised or under the shelter of 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 er 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 mity recognised in this respect by principles of abuse of power, mala fides, perversity, non extraneous consideration or a fortiori reason Reference can further be made to Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar , wherein it was observed by Hon'ble abeas corpus proceeding is not to justify or examine the . Habeas corpus proceeding is a 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 er not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be on has to be issued to set the detenue at Reliance in this context can be placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the Kuppammal and others vs. The Dist. r and Others, wherein it confinement of a person is either unlawful or considered to be unlawful in cases where the detention is not authorised or under the shelter of 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 er 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 mity recognised in this respect by principles of non- extraneous consideration or a fortiori reason s. Shekhar Hon'ble abeas corpus proceeding is not to justify or examine the is a 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 er not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) 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 cu 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 ot authority of law. observations were further made by the Hon’ble Apex Court : 12. In the present case, the age of the child, whose custody is sought by the petitioner/mother, is below 05 years. So far as the custody of the child below the age of 05 years is concerned, the mother 2024 (O&M) 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 ot authority of law. With regard to child custody matters, the following observations were further made by the Hon’ble Apex Court : “In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is of summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus.” In the present case, the age of the child, whose custody is sought by tioner/mother, is below 05 years. So far as the custody of the child below the age of 05 years is concerned, the mother -6- 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 stody. 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 With regard to child custody matters, the following observations were further made by the Hon’ble Apex Court : “In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the court exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is of summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach y in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas In the present case, the age of the child, whose custody is sought by tioner/mother, is below 05 years. So far as the custody of the child below the age of 05 years is concerned, the mother per se is considered to be the best 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 stody. 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 hers was illegal and without any With regard to child custody matters, the following “In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the court exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is of summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach y in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas In the present case, the age of the child, whose custody is sought by tioner/mother, is below 05 years. So far as the custody of the child below is considered to be the best MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-8029-2024 (O&M) suited to take care of such child during his tender age. However, at the same time, the custody of a to be illegal. With regard to rival claims of the parties that only one of them can look after the best interest of the minor Court if a petition seeking p such Court would be support of the competing claims and would obviously be more equipped to determine the welfare of the child by giving comp contesting parties. misbehavior and conduct of the parties to 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 jud Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to issue any writ of habeas corpus directing the private respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner. In view thereof, petition, the same is dismissed. 08.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) suited to take care of such child during his tender age. However, at the same time, the custody of a minor child with either of the natural guardians cannot said to be illegal. With regard to rival claims of the parties that only one of them can look after the best interest of the minor, can be ascertained Court if a petition seeking permanent custody of the child is filed before it such Court would be seized of the entire material to be produced support of the competing claims and would obviously be more equipped to determine the welfare of the child by giving comp contesting parties. Certain allegations and counter allegations with regard to misbehavior and conduct of the parties to 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 jud Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to issue any writ of habeas corpus directing the private respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner. In view thereof, tion, the same is dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -7- suited to take care of such child during his tender age. However, at the same minor child with either of the natural guardians cannot said to be illegal. With regard to rival claims of the parties that only one of them can can be ascertained by the appropriate ermanent custody of the child is filed before it of the entire material to be produced by the parties in support of the competing claims and would obviously be more equipped to determine the welfare of the child by giving complete opportunity to the Certain 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 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 no case has been made out to issue any writ of habeas corpus directing the private respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner. In view thereof, finding no merit in the (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes Yes suited to take care of such child during his tender age. However, at the same minor child with either of the natural guardians cannot said to be illegal. With regard to rival claims of the parties that only one of them can by the appropriate ermanent custody of the child is filed before it as by the parties in support of the competing claims and would obviously be more equipped to lete opportunity to the Certain allegations and counter allegations with regard to 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. gments, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to issue any writ of habeas corpus directing the private respondents to hand over the custody finding no merit in the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.09 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document