Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ker) 613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
Jamsheer A.R –Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Secretary Of The Goverment, Home Department - Respondent
WP(CRL.)NO.811 OF 2026
Decided On : 25-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt.Sunitha K.G.
For the Respondent: Sri.K.A. Anas, Public Prosecutor

A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for enforcing visitation rights or handling child custody disputes already governed by Family Court orders, unless there is proof of illegal confinement; such matters must be adjudicated through substantive proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the mother of his minor child violated visitation rights granted under a previous Family Court judgment and mediation agreement. The petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming the illegal concealment of the child and denial of access. The Court examined whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable, given that the child was in the lawful custody of the mother under a prior judicial arrangement. The core issues addressed were whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable to enforce visitation rights in custody matters and if the child could be considered under illegal confinement. The court observed that habeas corpus is a prerogative writ, applicable only under exceptional circumstances where custody is illegal. The court highlighted that substantive proceedings regarding custody and guardianship should be pursued under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, or the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as Family Courts possess the infrastructure for psychological assessment and monitoring, which are superior to the summary powers of a writ court. The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue pending remedies in the Family Court.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims violation of visitation rights in a custody agreement. (Para 1 , 1 , 2)
2. habeas corpus is not maintainable for visitation disputes when legal custody is already established. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“II. Issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to produce the minor child before this Hon’ble Court;

III. Direct immediate restoration of communication and visitation rights of the petitioner and the petitioner’s family members in terms of the mediation agreement in GOP No. 909/2024;

IV. Direct the respondents No. 3 and 4 to strictly comply with the judgment dated 04.06.2025 and the mediation agreement entered therein;

V. Permit the minor child to remain with the petitioner from 22.05.2026 to 25.05.2026 before reopening of the school;

VI. Direct the respondent to disclose the present residential address and whereabouts of the minor child before this Hon’ble Court;

VII.The petition may kindly be granted Crl. M.A No. /2026 (Separate Application is filed)”.

2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner is the father of the minor child born in wedlock between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th respondent is the mother of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner is employed as a Client Relationship Manager in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The child was under the care, custody, upbringing and supervision of the petitioner from 06.11.2023 to 04.06.2025. As per Ext.P1 judgment dated 04.06.2025 of the Family Court, Vatakara, in G.O.P.No.909 of 2024, pursuant to Ext.P2 mediation agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, the interim custody of the child was entrusted to the 3^rd respondent, subject to the specific conditions safeguarding the petitioner’s parental communications and visitation rights, besides the child’s welfare and emotional connections. According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent wilfully and deliberately violated the conditions in the mediation agreement by denying communication, visitation and access to the minor child from 24.04.2026. All modes of communication with the child, including phone calls, WhatsApp, video calls and other communications, have been intentionally blocked by the 3^rd respondent without any lawful justification, thereby violating Clause 7 of the mediation agreement.

2.1. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that on 16.05.2026, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No.03 of 2026 before the Family Court, Vatakara, seeking the restoration and enforcement of his visitation, communication and custody-related rights arising out of Ext.P1 judgment dated 04.06.2025 in G.O.P. No.909 of 2024. Though a special messenger was deputed by the Family Court, Vatakara, to serve notice to the 3rdrespondent in her residence, the 3rdrespondent and the minor child were not available at that address. According to the petitioner, the deliberate concealment of the residential address and whereabouts of the minor child, coupled with continued denial of communication and visitation rights, creates serious apprehension regarding the welfare, safety, emotional well-being and lawful custody of the child. The petitioner, who returned to Kerala from the UAE on 15.05.2026 solely to meet the child and spend time with her before the reopening of the school, is required to return to the UAE on or before 25.05.2026 to resume employment duties. Under those circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this habeas corpus petition.

3. On 22.05.2026, when this matter was called at 2.00 p.m. as a ‘today motion’, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be filing an application to delete some of the reliefs sought for in the