IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Vahin Saxena (Minor Corpus) And Another – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondent
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.467 of 2021
Decided on : 27-08-2021
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 26 - Custody of child - Divorce - Child stated that he is living comfortably with respondent his mother her care and guardianship child has stated that he being taken good care of and is being accorded love affection and guardianship - There is nothing to suggest that child any kind threat or coercion or that he is under any kind of illegal detention –
Finding of the Court:
Custody of a minor may be directed to be taken away from mother for being given to any other person-including father of child in exercise of writ jurisdiction- This would be so also for reason that other parent in present case father can take resort to substantive statutory remedy in respect of his claim regarding custody of child - child custody matter a writ of habeas corpus would be entertain able where it is established that detention of minor child by parent or others is illegal and without authority of law- In a writ court where rights are determined on basis of affidavits in a case where court is of a view that a detailed enquiry would be required it may decline to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and direct parties to approach appropriate forum petitioner with regard to father's claim for custody and/or visitation rights are matters which are to be agitated in appropriate proceedings - This would be more so for reason that in case at hand proceedings HMA are pending between parties before Family Court and all ancillary reliefs and claims are open to be raised before said forum or in other appropriate proceedings –
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for State respondents.
2. The petitioner no.2 asserting himself to be the father of petitioner no.1-corpus, has filed the present habeas corpus petition alleging that the corpus is under illegal custody of his mother-respondent no.4.
3. As per the pleadings in the petition, the petitioner no.1 is stated to have been born in the year 2012. On 6.01.2019, the respondent no.4 is said to have left her matrimonial home along with her minor child-petitioner no.1 and since then he is with his mother-respondent no.4. A divorce petition, registered as Case No. 1714/2020, is stated to be pending between the parties before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra.
4. Pursuant to the rule nisi issued on 23.7.2021, the petitioner no.1-corpus has been produced in court by his mother-respondent no.4, and they have been identified by Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
5. Counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the child being a minor, it would be very difficult to ascertain his wishes and matters relating to custody and guardianship may have to be decided by the Court in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction i.e. looking into the welfare of the child.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has interacted with the child, in Court, and submits that child has stated that he is living comfortably with the respondent no.4, his mother, under her care and guardianship. The child has stated that he is being taken good care of and is being accorded love, affection and guardianship. There is nothing to suggest that the child is under any kind of threat or coercion or that he is under any kind of illegal detention.
7. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable ground or probable cause being shown, as held in Mohammad Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1964 SC 1625 and Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674.
8. The object and scope of a writ of habeas corpus in the context of a claim relating to custody of a minor child fell for consideration in Sayed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana and others, (2001) 5 SCC 247, and it was held that in a habeas corpus petition seeking transfer of custody of a child from one parent to the other, the principal consideration for the court would be to ascertain whether the custody of the child can be said to be unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the child requires that the present custody should be changed. It was stated thus:-
9. Taking a similar view in the case of Nithya Anand Raghvan v State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2017) 8 SCC 454, it was held that the principal duty of the court in such matters is to ascertain whether the custody of the child is unlawful and illegal and whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as follows:-
Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw
Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal
Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate Darjeeling
Mohammad Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others
Nithya Anand Raghvan v State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Sayed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana and others
Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.