1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice DebangsuBasak And The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WPA (H) 61 of 2026 Furqan Hossain Ansari Vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors. For the Petitioner :Ms. Gargi Dhang, Adv. Mr. Debojyoti Kumar For the State : Mr. DibasishBasu, Adv. Ms. Sneha Dutta, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Das, Adv. Hearing Concluded : July 20, 2026 Judgement on : July 20, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Petitioner seeks custody of his minor son. 2. Petitioner is presently in Saudi Arabia. Marriage between the petitioner and his wife took place on October 19, 2022. Petitioner left for Saudi Arabia on November 15, 2024. 3. Wife of the petitioner lodged police complaint as against the petitioner and his relatives on February 1, 2025. Provisions of the Dowry Provisions Act were also included in 2 the police complaint. Another police complaint was lodged on February 6, 2025 as against the petitioner and his family members. 4. Sum and substance of the two complaints are torture and dowry demands as against the wife of the petitioner meted out by the petitioner and his family members. 5. There is also a Title Suit pending between the parties, namely Title Suit No. 602 of 2025. 6. Wife of the petitioner during her lifetime filed a writ of habeas corpus being WPA (H) 38 of 2025 for custody of the child. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated June 18, 2025. 7. Wife of the petitioner took the child with her to her paternal home. Wife of the writ petitioner expired there. 8. Custody of the child was with the wife of the writi petitioner till her death on May 21, 2025. Subsequent to her death, the custody of the child continues to remain with the natural parents of the wife of the writ petitioner, i.e. the maternal grandparents of the child. 9. Petitioner is not in India. On instructions, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the 3 petitioner is likely to come back to India in November of this year. 10. Reliance is placed on 2019 (7) SCC 42 (Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Ors.) on behalf of the petitioner to contend that the writ petition is maintainable and the writ petitioner is entitled to custody of his child through this writ petition. 11. In Tejaswani Gaud and Ors. (supra), Supreme Court held that the interest of the child is paramount while considering the issue of custody. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, petitioner not in India. At this stage, it cannot be said that it is in the best interest of the child that the custody of the child be made over to the petitioner who is in a foreign country. 13. Petitioner is well aware of the present location of his child. Custody of the child with the maternal grand-parents of the child cannot be said to be ipso fact illegal. Petitioner can avail of his statutory alternative remedies which are efficacious with regard to the custody of the child. There are disputed questions of the facts involved as noted above. 4 14. In such circumstances, we are not minded to exercise our discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. WPA (H) 61 of 2026 is dismissed without any order as to costs. [DEBANGSU BASAK, J.] 16. I agree. [AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.] S.D. SUROJIT DAS Digitally signed by SUROJIT DAS Date: 2026.07.21 16:44:25 +05'30'