In child custody disputes, habeas corpus petitions are not maintainable when the natural guardian holds custody; detailed inquiries are preferred under existing custodial laws to determine the children's welfare.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner’s minor son, Abhir, and daughter, Abhira @ Aarya, from the custody of respondent No. 3 (the father).

4. The petitioner is the wife of respondent No.3, with whom her marriage was solemnized on 30/08/2020. After the marriage, the petitioner started residing in the house of respondent No.3 at village Kadepur, Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli. However, respondent No.3 and his family members subjected her to cruelty. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner has a son, Abhir, born on 27/02/2022, and a daughter, Abhira @ Aarya, born on 17/11/2023. Ultimately, on 02/06/2025, respondent No.3 allegedly mercilessly assaulted the petitioner and drove her out of the matrimonial home after removing her ornaments and taking away the minor children. Since 02/06/2025, the petitioner is residing at her parental home at Muslewadi, Taluka Ranapur, District Latur.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, Latur, seeking custody and guardianship of her minor children - both below five years of age under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as well as Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Respondent No. 3 raised an objection to the said application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction contending that the ordinary residence of the minors is at village Kadepur, Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli. The learned District Judge, Latur, upheld the objection of respondent No. 3 at (Exhibit-15) and held that the application was not maintainable in view of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Being aggrieved by the orders below Exhibit-15 and Exhibit-1 dated 18/09/2025, the petitioner has filed Civil Revision (Stamp) Application No.33100 of 2025, which is to be circulated before the learned Single Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following judgments.

A) Pravin Nathalal Parghi vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2374 of 2025 dated 04/09/2025 of this court.

B) Veena Kapoor vs. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, 1982 AIR(SC) 792;

C) Sadaf Naaz vs. Shashi Kumar Mishra and others, in W.P. (CRL)4002/2024 & CRL.M.A. 38615/2024 dated 20/12/2024 of Delhi High Court and

D) Smt. Sarabjit wd/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar vs. Sh. Piara Lal and another, AIR 2005 Punjab and Haryana 237.

6. On the contrary, the learned APP, by placing reliance on the order passed by the learned District Judge, Latur, below Exhibit-15 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 2025, raised a similar objection and contended that the present petition ought to have been filed before the Kolhapur Circuit Bench of this Court as the minors are residing in Sangli District, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of that Bench. He further objected to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of minor children is not maintainable when the children are in the custody of their natural guardian i.e. their father. He also relied upon the judgment in case of Tejaswani Gaud and Others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others, (2019) 7 SCC 42.

7. Admittedly, the minor children are in the cu