The writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when statutory remedies are available, particularly in child custody disputes already before a competent court.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. P. Krishna Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent/police authorities ensuring the production of the minor daughter of the petitioner viz. Musfira Amal, aged around 3 years and 10 months before this Court and thereafter restore the custody of the said minor child to the petitioner who is the natural guardian/biological mother of the minor child.

3. From the pleadings that are available on record what clearly culls out is that the marriage between the petitioner and 7th respondent took place on 15.08.2019 at Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, the 7th respondent, the husband of the petitioner was working in Dubai. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner went along with respondent No. 7 and were residing in Dubai. While they were staying in Dubai as husband and wife, the minor child viz. Musfira Alam was born on 03.06.2020. However, since the child developed certain medical complications, for better treatment the petitioner and the minor child came to India on 12.06.2023.

4. It is said that on 16.06.2023, the 11th respondent who is the brother of the 7th respondent, on the pretext of taking the child for a ride took the child from her custody and since then the child was not returned back to the petitioner. Inspite of all efforts, negotiations and persuasions, the child continued to remain with the custody of the close relatives of the 7th respondent i.e., in the custody of respondent Nos. 8 to 11. In between the petitioner herein has also lodged a complaint with the police authorities so far as the 11th respondent having illegally taken away the child from the mother's custody. It is said that there has been no progress on the said complaint. Subsequently, the petitioner also has filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the month of October 2023. The same has been registered and after taking cognizance, the summons also has been issued to the respondent therein. The said complaint case has been registered as D.V.C. No. 40 of 2024. The petitioner continued her persuasion with the respondents in getting the custody of the child back, but without any success. It was in between that the 7th respondent has filed a petition under Section 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890, before the Principal Family Court at Hyderabad, where the said case G.W.O.P. No. 572 of 2024, seeking for the declaration and appointment of the respondent No. 7 as the guardian of his minor daughter viz. Musfira Alam and to retain the physical custody of the daughter till she attains the age of majority. The petition under the Guardian and Wards Act was filed on 15.04.2024.

5. It is subsequent to all this that the present writ petition now has been filed on 01.05.2024 by the petitioner/mother seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, for firstly production of the minor child before the court and secondly for granting the custody of the minor child to the petitioner/mother.

6. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the petition for Habeas Corpus in the aforementioned factual backdrop, particularly, where the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, has already been filed and is in the process of consideration by the concerned competent court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vinayak Goyal v. Prem Prakash Goyal, 1981 Law Suit (All) 375