The welfare of the child and the child's expressed preference are paramount considerations in child custody matters, and the court may decline the writ of Habeas Corpus based on these factors.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner-Raj winder Kaur is the mother of alleged detenue child Tamanpreet Kaur, aged about 8 years.

2. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to direct the official respondents to produce the detenue Tamanpreet Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, who is stated to be in unlawful and illegal custody of private respondents No.4 to 8; and further to issue direction to respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to meet the detenue in the house of said respondent No.4 and further to issue any such writ or direction, as deemed fit by this Court.

3.1 According to the petitioner, after her marriage with Bulla son of Fakir Chand, a daughter named Tamanpreet Kaur was bom to her on 11.11.2015. Due to matrimonial differences, they mutually agreed to separate. By way of a panchayati divorce, petitioner separated from the husband. The custody of the detenue child was handed over to her. Thereafter, the petitioner remarried respondent No.4-Nishan Singh on 06.10.2016 and out of this wedlock, another daughter namely Diljot Kaur was bom in 2017. Respondents No.5 to 8 are the parents and brothers of respondent No.4-Nishan Singh i.e., the second husband of the petitioner.

3.2 It is alleged that after the birth of Diljot Kaur in 2017, the behavior of respondents No.4 to 8 changed towards the petitioner and the minor girl born from the first marriage and that they threw the petitioner out of the matrimonial home and illegally detained the minor girl namely Tamanpreet Kaur. Petitioner approached the police, who called the private respondents in the police station and it was agreed by the private respondents that they will take care of the minor child Tamanpreet Kaur and that petitioner will have visitation rights to meet the girl. For the future of the child, petitioner agreed. However, after some time, petitioner was not even allowed to talk or meet with any of the children. It is also alleged that petitioner found that detenue Tamanpreet Kaur was being treated by the private respondents as a servant and their behavior towards her was cruel, as they were not even providing basic needs to the detenue. Petitioner then approached the police officials by filing a representation dated 27.10.2023 to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Tam Taran, copy of which is Annexure P2. Petitioner contends that being the natural mother, she is the lawful guardian of minor Tamanpreet Kaur, who is being illegally detained by the private respondents.

3.3 With these submissions, present petition has been filed for issuance of the writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

4. On 29.11.2023, this Court, after noticing that petitioner was the natural mother of minor child Tamanpreet Kaur and that private respondents No.4 to 8 had nothing to do with the legal guardianship of the detenue, issued notice of motion and directed the official respondents to produce the minor detenue- Tamanpreet Kaur before the Court.

5. On 11.12.2023, the detenue child was produced, who appeared along with respondent No.7 i.e., mother of the second husband of the petitioner. This Court passed the following order on that day: -

"Power of Attorney has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 7, who is stated to be grandmother of detenue. Said respondent No. 7 is present in person along with detenue child.

After hearing both the sides, it emerges that petitioner is the natural mother of the detenue. Respondent No. 4 - Nishan Singh, is her second husband. Respondent No. 7 is the grandmother of detenue, but not the real grandmother as she is the mother of second husband of the petitioner, whereas the detenue is the daughter of petitioner from her first husband. Thus, it emerges that the private respondents have no real relationship whatsoever with the detenue.

In the afore-said circumstances, custody of detenue child is directed to be restored to the petitioner.

The official respondents No