COURTKUTCHEHRY EXCLUSIVE: P&H COURT RULING ON CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE
“Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules: Habeas Corpus Not Meant for Child Custody Battles”
“Court says both parents are natural guardians, welfare of child comes first”
“Judges caution against misuse of habeas corpus in family disputes”
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: January 03, 2026:
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court have dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by an uncle seeking custody of his 12-year-old nephew. The Court clarified that habeas corpus is not the right legal remedy for child custody disputes, which must be decided under the Guardians and Wards Act or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMGA).
Also Read: Inheritance Disputes in India: Why Seniors Must Use Wills to Ensure Fair Property Division
The judgment, delivered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar on April 29, 2025, highlights the growing misuse of habeas corpus petitions in family conflicts and reaffirms that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters.
You Can Read the Full Judgement here: Raja Rekhi Vs State Of Haryana And Others (https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1219889/pdf/?view=inline)
Case Background
- The petitioner, Raja Rekhi, filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
- He sought the release of his nephew, Kabir Rekhi (12 years old), from the custody of his mother (respondent No.4).
- The father, Amit Rekhi, was abroad on a business trip when the mother allegedly took the child along with his passport, intending to move him to Australia.
- The petitioner alleged illegal custody and sought habeas corpus relief.
Respondent’s Defence
- The mother argued that the child himself contacted her, distressed at being left with house help while his father was away.
- She flew back from Australia to comfort him.
- She produced call records and messages showing the child requested her presence.
- She claimed her right as a natural guardian under Section 6 of HMGA, since no court order had divested her of custody.
Also Read: NHAI Ends Post-Activation KYV for FASTags: Big Relief for Indian Motorists
Court’s Observations
- Kidnapping under IPC Section 361
- Kidnapping requires taking a minor from the custody of a lawful guardian without consent.
- Both parents are natural guardians, so one cannot be accused of kidnapping their own child unless acting unlawfully.
- Natural Guardianship under HMGA
- For boys and unmarried girls, the father is the natural guardian, followed by the mother.
- However, custody of children below 5 years ordinarily rests with the mother.
- The law recognises the indispensable role of a mother in upbringing.
- Misuse of Habeas Corpus
- The Court noted an increasing trend of parents filing habeas corpus petitions to settle custody disputes.
- It cited Supreme Court precedents (Tejaswini Gaud vs Shekhar Tewari, 2019; Rajeshwari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2022) clarifying that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for custody proceedings.
- Welfare of the Child
- Welfare and best interests of the child remain the supreme consideration.
- The Court emphasised that custody disputes must be resolved in family courts, not through writ petitions.
Final Decision
- The High Court dismissed the petition.
- It held that since the guardianship case was already pending in Gurugram Family Court, interference was unwarranted.
- The Court stressed that the 12-year-old child’s wishes and well-being must be considered, as he can form rational opinions.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Clarifies law: Parents cannot accuse each other of kidnapping their own child unless unlawful intent is proven.
- Limits misuse: Habeas corpus cannot be used as a shortcut in custody battles.
- Strengthens family courts: Guardianship petitions remain the proper legal route.
- Child welfare focus: Reinforces that custody decisions must prioritise the child’s comfort, safety, and emotional needs.
Wider Legal Context
- Supreme Court rulings: Consistently hold that habeas corpus in custody cases is limited to illegal detention.
- Family law reforms: India has seen calls for faster resolution of custody disputes to reduce trauma for children.
- Parens patriae principle: Courts act as guardians of minors, ensuring their welfare above parental disputes.
Expert Views
Also Read: Casting Couch in Indian Cinema: Rampant Exploitation and How Victims Can Seek Justice
Legal experts believe this ruling will:
- Reduce frivolous habeas corpus petitions in custody matters.
- Encourage parents to resolve disputes through family courts.
- Protect children from being caught in prolonged litigation.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling is a reminder that child custody is not about parental rights but about the welfare of the child. By dismissing the habeas corpus petition, the Court reinforced that custody disputes must be settled under proper guardianship laws, not through extraordinary writ remedies.
This judgment sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that children’s interests remain paramount and that legal processes are not misused in family conflicts.
Suggested Keywords (SEO + ChatGPT)
- Punjab Haryana High Court child custody case
- Habeas corpus misuse in custody disputes India
- IPC Section 361 kidnapping guardianship
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act Section 6
- Family Court child custody India 2025
- Raja Rekhi vs State of Haryana judgment
- Child welfare paramount custody law India
- Supreme Court rulings habeas corpus custody
Also Read: Delhi High Court Flags Lifelong Scars of False Rape Cases: Remedies and Reforms Needed