Introduction:

In the case X v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 23], the Rajasthan High Court was faced with a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his two minor children, aged 11 and 12 years. The father argued that his children were unlawfully detained by their mother, alleging that she was leading an immoral and adulterous life, which he believed was not a suitable environment for the children. However, after interacting with the children and considering their wishes to stay with their mother, the court refused to interfere with the mother’s custody, emphasizing the welfare and well-being of the children. The division bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta, pointed out that the merits of the allegations made by both parties were a matter for the family court to decide and could not be addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding, which is a summary process.

Arguments by the Father (Petitioner):

The petitioner, the father of the two children, contended that his children were not in the right environment with their mother, who, according to him, was allegedly involved in an immoral and adulterous lifestyle. He argued that this environment was unsuitable for the children’s mental and emotional well-being, and their custody should, therefore, be granted to him. The petitioner submitted that the children were not receiving proper care under the mother’s custody and were being exposed to negative influences that could affect their future. He further emphasized that a habeas corpus petition was maintainable in such matters, even in the presence of a pending family dispute, citing that the court could still examine whether the children’s custody was unlawful.

Arguments by the Mother (Respondent):

On the other hand, the mother, represented by a team of lawyers, raised preliminary objections against the petition. The defense counsel argued that the father had already approached the family court regarding the custody issue, and therefore, the habeas corpus petition was not the appropriate forum to resolve such disputes. They argued that the children’s custody by their biological mother could not be deemed illegal. Additionally, the defense emphasized the importance of allowing the family court to hear the case based on the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations. Furthermore, the mother’s counsel highlighted that the children were well-cared for in her custody and that they wished to stay with her. The counsel also pointed out that the children were not facing any legal harm and were under no threat while in their mother’s custody.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing both sides, the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the mother’s custody over the minor children. The bench took into account the children’s direct interaction with the court, during which they expressed their desire to remain with their mother. The children, aged 11 and 12, explicitly stated that they did not wish to stay with their father. The court considered their wishes as an important factor in determining custody, as the welfare of children is of paramount importance in custody matters. The bench pointed out that despite the 700 pages of allegations and counter-allegations filed by the parties, it was not the scope of the habeas corpus petition to adjudicate on such disputes. The court emphasized that these matters should be decided by the family court, where both parties had already filed their claims and counterclaims.

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2017), which held that custody with the biological mother cannot be deemed unlawful, especially in the absence of a clear indication of harm or danger to the children. In this case, the bench noted that the children were with their mother, and their custody could not be regarded as illegal simply because the father wished otherwise.

Moreover, the bench observed that the allegations and counter-allegations, such as those about the mother’s lifestyle, were best addressed by the family court after proper evidence was presented, and the habeas corpus petition was not the appropriate forum to resolve these complex issues.

In disposing of the petition, the court reminded the mother of her responsibility to foster a harmonious relationship between the children and their father. It was expected that she would not “poison the minds” of the children against their father and would encourage a cordial relationship between the children and their father. The court made it clear that the family court would not be prejudiced by its order, and the decision regarding custody would still be made in the family court.