Introduction:
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of habeas corpus petitions in custody disputes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked as a substitute for regular guardianship proceedings under statutory laws such as the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Justice Sumeet Goel, while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her minor child, underscored that the High Court’s intervention through habeas corpus is permissible only in cases where the custody of the child is demonstrably illegal or unlawful. The case was titled Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others, in which the petitioner-mother sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction despite having already approached the guardianship court with a similar plea for custody.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Chetan Goyal, contended that the minor child was in the custody of the father (respondent), and such custody amounted to illegal detention justifying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. It was argued that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance and the Court, in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction, ought to intervene and entrust the custody of the child to the mother. The petitioner relied on precedents where courts have recognized that detention of a minor by a person not legally entitled to custody can amount to unlawful detention for the purpose of habeas corpus. Further, the petitioner emphasized that habeas corpus is an efficacious remedy in matters involving the liberty of a minor and the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide enough to ensure the child’s welfare even in custody disputes.
The petitioner highlighted that the Supreme Court, in several judgments, has observed that in appropriate cases involving minor children, the High Court is empowered to relax jurisdictional requirements if the welfare of the child so demands. Stressing upon this, the petitioner contended that the present case was one such instance where the intervention of the Court was necessary to safeguard the best interests of the minor. It was argued that the prolonged custody with the father, without adequate nurturing and maternal care, was detrimental to the child’s welfare. The petitioner further argued that despite having approached the Guardians and Wards Court earlier, the remedy under habeas corpus remained open and the High Court was competent to grant immediate relief.
Arguments by the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, AAG Punjab, and Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4, strongly opposed the petition. They argued that habeas corpus is not a substitute for custody proceedings and the statutory framework provided under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is the proper remedy for adjudicating such disputes. The respondents emphasized that custody of a minor child with one of the natural guardians, such as a father, cannot be considered unlawful or illegal custody in the absence of a contrary order by a competent court.
They pointed out that the petitioner herself had already instituted an application under the Guardians and Wards Act in January 2025 for custody of the same child. Therefore, the present habeas corpus petition amounted to parallel proceedings and an attempt to circumvent the proper statutory forum. The respondents submitted that such petitions, if entertained, would defeat the procedural safeguards and comprehensive adjudication mechanisms envisaged under the guardianship statutes. They also relied upon recent Supreme Court rulings, including Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023), wherein it was reiterated that habeas corpus jurisdiction can be invoked only when the custody is unlawful. Further reliance was placed on Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, where the Apex Court held that custody by a natural guardian cannot, as a matter of course, be treated as illegal detention.
The respondents thus urged the Court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the writ jurisdiction was not maintainable, the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy already invoked, and no exceptional circumstances warranting interference were demonstrated.
Judgment of the High Court:
After hearing both sides, Justice Sumeet Goel delivered a detailed order elucidating the scope of habeas corpus in custody matters. The Court began by reiterating the well-established principle that the writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ available only when a person is unlawfully detained without authority of law. Applying this principle in the context of minor children, the Court observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue habeas corpus in custody matters is predicated on the basic jurisdictional fact that the custody of the minor child is demonstrably illegal or unlawful.
Justice Goel clarified that while in exceptional circumstances the High Court may relax this prerequisite in the interest of the welfare of the child, habeas corpus cannot be misused as a shortcut to bypass guardianship proceedings. The Court emphatically held that a habeas corpus petition is not a substitute for the meticulous, evidence-based determination of custody disputes which the guardianship statutes provide. These statutes lay down a comprehensive framework involving presentation of evidence, cross-examination, and judicial evaluation of the child’s welfare — processes which cannot be supplanted by the summary nature of habeas corpus jurisdiction.
The Court also observed that custody of a minor with one of the natural guardians, such as a father or mother, cannot automatically be deemed illegal unless there is a specific order of a competent court to the contrary. As a general judicial principle, writ courts are expected to exercise restraint and defer such disputes to statutory forums unless extraordinary circumstances necessitate intervention. The Court reiterated that in exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, it must look beyond adversarial claims and focus on the welfare of the child. However, this does not dilute the requirement that custody must be shown to be unlawful to invoke habeas corpus jurisdiction.
Relying on precedents, including Tejaswini Gaud and Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh, the Court reiterated that unlawful custody is the jurisdictional key for habeas corpus in child custody matters. It acknowledged that while the welfare of the child is always paramount, the legislative frameworks of guardianship laws are the primary routes for adjudication of custody issues. The Court further observed that the petitioner had already approached the Guardians and Wards Court in January 2025 for the same relief, and therefore, there was no justification for invoking writ jurisdiction in parallel.
Finding no illegality in the father’s custody of the child, and noting that the petitioner had recourse to the guardianship court, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The judgment thus reinforced the principle that habeas corpus is a remedy of last resort in child custody disputes, applicable only in cases of unlawful detention, and not a substitute for regular custody proceedings under the statutory framework.