Introduction:

In Smt. Prabha Rani v. State of Tripura (WP (C)(HC) No. 14 of 2022), decided on 04.02.2026, the Tripura High Court was confronted with a deeply sensitive child custody dispute that went far beyond a mechanical application of legal provisions and instead demanded a humane, welfare-centric approach rooted in constitutional values; the petitioner, Smt. Prabha Rani Das, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production and custody of her four-year-old minor daughter, alleging that the child was illegally detained first by hospital authorities and subsequently by a child care institution in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, despite the petitioner being the biological mother and natural guardian, and the case arose against a distressing factual backdrop involving prolonged medical treatment, alleged medical negligence, separation of mother and child, and denial of maternal access; the petitioner narrated that her daughter had been suffering from breathing complications from a young age and had undergone treatment in Agartala, Guwahati, and Kolkata before being taken to Apollo Hospital and thereafter to CMC Vellore for advanced care, where doctors diagnosed colostomy disease, but during the course of treatment probationary doctors allegedly adopted incorrect medical procedures and when the petitioner objected she was abused, forcibly removed from the hospital premises, prevented from meeting or breastfeeding her child, and even after clearing all hospital dues she was informed that custody could not be handed over on the ground that the child allegedly suffered from psychiatric issues, a claim which, according to her, was a mere pretext to unlawfully retain the child, compelling her to seek constitutional remedies.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the continued detention of the minor child by hospital authorities and thereafter by a child care institution was wholly illegal, arbitrary, and without the authority of law, thereby squarely attracting the remedy of habeas corpus, and it was argued that a mother’s right to the custody of her minor child, particularly one of tender age, is recognized both under personal law and general principles of guardianship unless compelling circumstances demonstrate that such custody would be detrimental to the child’s welfare, which was conspicuously absent in the present case; it was further submitted that the petitioner was subjected to inhuman treatment, was separated from her child at a critical medical stage, and that allegations regarding the petitioner’s biological relationship with the child were not only unfounded but humiliating, later conclusively resolved by a DNA test conducted by the State Forensic Science Laboratory which unequivocally established that the petitioner was the biological mother, and therefore the continued denial of custody was nothing short of unlawful confinement of a minor; emphasis was placed on settled jurisprudence that in matters of child custody, technical objections and procedural rigidity must yield to the overarching consideration of the child’s welfare, emotional security, and psychological well-being, especially where the child is of such tender years that maternal care becomes indispensable.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:

The State and other respondents sought to justify their actions by referring to medical opinions, institutional protocols, and alleged concerns regarding the mental and physical condition of the child, and it was argued that the child had been placed in institutional care only to ensure her safety and continued medical supervision, with no malafide intention to permanently deprive the mother of custody, and reliance was placed on procedural safeguards under child protection laws to suggest that actions taken were in the best interest of the child; however, the respondents were unable to demonstrate any valid legal order authorizing continued separation of the child from her biological mother once doubts regarding maternity were dispelled, nor could they justify the prolonged denial of access and custody in the absence of any finding that the mother was unfit or that the child’s welfare would be jeopardized if restored to her care.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

The Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha delivered a deeply reasoned and empathetic judgment, categorically holding that child custody disputes cannot be decided merely by technical interpretation of statutes or rigid legal formulas, as such matters involve profound human elements and emotional realities that demand a sensitive, humane, and welfare-oriented approach, and the Court memorably observed that “the child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro,” but a living human being whose welfare constitutes the sole focal point of judicial consideration; the Bench reiterated the settled principle that in child custody matters the doctrine of parens patriae obligates courts to act as guardians of the child’s best interests, transcending adversarial postures and procedural constraints, and clarified that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in cases where a minor child is found to be in illegal detention without authority of law, irrespective of whether such detention is by private individuals or institutions; the Court noted that once the DNA report conclusively established the biological relationship between the petitioner and the child, all lingering doubts evaporated, and in the absence of any judicial or statutory order divesting the mother of custody, the continued detention of the child by hospital authorities and child care institutions was wholly unauthorized; rejecting the respondents’ reliance on vague medical or psychiatric assertions, the Court emphasized that no material had been placed to show that handing over custody to the mother would endanger the child’s physical or mental well-being, and on the contrary, prolonged separation from the mother was more likely to cause emotional and psychological harm to a child of such tender age; underscoring that constitutional courts cannot shut their eyes to human suffering under the guise of technicalities, the Bench allowed the writ petition, directed that the custody of the minor child be immediately handed over to the petitioner-mother, and further ordered State authorities to facilitate the safe and dignified return of both mother and child to Tripura, thereby restoring not only legal custody but also the human bond that lies at the heart of parenthood.