Custody of Minor Child Under Five Ordinarily With Mother: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules in Habeas Corpus Case

In a significant ruling affirming the rights of a mother to care for her young child, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the immediate restoration of custody of a three-year-old boy to his mother, Gurwinder Kaur. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that in the eyes of the law, the welfare of a minor child is of paramount importance, and custody of children under age five should, as a general rule, remain with the mother unless proven otherwise.

A Traumatic Separation The conflict arose from a love marriage solemnized in August 2021. According to the petitioner, her life at the matrimonial home deteriorated shortly after the marriage due to dowry demands. The situation intensified after her husband, who allegedly struggled with drug addiction, relocated to Dubai in December 2025.

The petitioner alleged that she was forced to flee the matrimonial home in March 2026, taking her young son, Yuvrajpreet Singh, with her. However, persistent threats against the safety of her family led her to return to the matrimonial home, only to be coerced into leaving the house again—this time without her son, whom the respondents forcefully retained. Despite several attempts to seek police intervention and contact the Women Helpline, the mother remained separated from her child, eventually filing a petition for Habeas Corpus .

The Battle Over Guardianship The respondents—including the child's father and paternal relatives—argued that the child was being well-cared for in a good school. They further contended that the mother, who is currently pregnant, would be physically and financially unable to provide for the child, suggesting that the petition for Habeas Corpus was not even legally maintainable against the father.

The court, however, dissected these arguments through the lens of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 . Justice Bedi noted in his order that the father, grandmother, and other relatives could not adequately replace the role of a mother, particularly for a toddler.

Key Observations The judgment is underscored by the principle of maternal suitability and child welfare. Key excerpts from the ruling include:

• "Not only is a Habeas Corpus petition seeking custody of a child maintainable at the instance of either parent... the welfare of the child is of paramount importance and therefore, custody should be granted to that parent in who’s custody the welfare of the child is better taken care of."
• "Unless the mother is wholly unsuitable to be granted the custody of a child, ordinarily the custody of a child below the age of 05 years must be with the mother."
• "It would be grave cruelty to the mother in case at this stage of her life when she is pregnant once again, her first born is taken away from her who himself is only of the age of about 03 years."

A Verdict for the Future The Court rejected the in-laws' assertions that the mother’s current pregnancy made her unsuitable. By granting the petition, the High Court has reaffirmed that financial constraints or pregnancy do not automatically disqualify a parent from their natural right to raise their child.

The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala , to ensure the child is handed over to the mother immediately. Recognizing the role of both parents, the ruling also thoughtfully mandates that the mother must grant visitation access to the father, dependent on the welfare and convenience of the child. This decision serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary's commitment to the " best interests of the child " standard in family disputes.