The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and custody can be refused if it does not promote the child's welfare.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for appointment of a Warrant Officer to search, locate and recover the alleged detenue i.e. her minor daughter, aged about 9 years, and get her released from the illegal confinement of respondent No.4 i.e. mother of the petitioner herself.

2. Vide order dated 13.03.2023, this Court while issuing notice of motion on the respondents, had also directed that a status report be filed on or before the next date of hearing i.e. today, with copy in advance to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the alleged detenue is present in the Court along with respondent No.4, therefore, she does not wish to file status report.

4. Mr. Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and filed his power of attorney today. Respondent No.4 along with the alleged detenue is also present in the Court along with her counsel. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in the Court today, which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended and alleged that the minor daughter, aged 9 years, of the petitioner has been illegally confined by her maternal grandmother i.e. respondent No.4, qua which she made a complaint to the police, however, no action was taken. She has further submitted that respondent No.4 on 09.12.2022 after pressurising the petitioner, took away the alleged detenue i.e. the minor daughter of the petitioner, with her on the pretext of providing her good schooling and better care. Subsequently, on 28.12.2022 respondent No.4 told the petitioner over a video call that she had detained the alleged detenue and further refused to let the petitioner even meet the alleged detenue or talk to her. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner being a natural guardian of the alleged detenue has a preferential right to the custody of the alleged detenue, who is her 9 year old daughter, however, respondent No.4 has not only illegally detained the alleged detenue but has also poisoned and brainwashed her against the petitioner. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner had brought up the alleged detenue in healthy surroundings and also shares a close bond with her, and therefore, was entitled to her custody. It has lastly been contended that there existed a grave threat to the life and liberty to the alleged detenue and thus, her custody be immediately given to the petitioner. In support, learned counsel has relied upon 'Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others' 2022 SCC Online SC 885.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 while controverting the submissions by the counsel opposite, has vehemently contended that the alleged detenue is not in the illegal custody of respondent No.4, rather the petitioner had herself given the custody of her minor daughter to the respondent No.4, owing to the petitioner's financial incapacity to pay for the alleged detenue's tuition fees and other expenses after her marriage with one Hardip Singh on 01.11.2018, who she had married after obtaining divorce from her first husband. Learned counsel has contended that when the alleged detenue started living with her maternal grandmother i.e. respondent No.4, she disclosed and confided in the latter that her step-father Hardip Singh had sexually abused her on multiple occasions and even threatened her of dire consequences in case she revealed or complained against him to anyone. It has been further submitted that when the alleged detenue told about the same to the petitioner i.e. her mother, the latter instead of taking any action against Hardip Singh, admonished her minor daughter i.e. the alleged detenue. Even when respondent No.4 confronted the petitioner with the said facts, the petitioner behaved brazenly with her. Thereafter, respondent No.4 approa