A writ of habeas corpus for child custody is maintainable only in exceptional cases demonstrating clear illegal detention or violation of established court orders. Ordinary custodial disputes between parents are civil matters to be adjudicated through statutory guardianship provisions, not summary writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.K.Singh, learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.

2. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding respondents to produce petitioner no. 1 (corpus) before this Court and to set her at liberty.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with respondent no. 4 on 07.02.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, petitioner no. 2, Devansh, aged about 14 years, and petitioner no. 3, Awani, aged about 10 years, were born. It is further submitted that relations between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 became strained, and petitioner no. 1 was driven out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 04.06.2022, respondent no. 4 allegedly came to the matrimonial home of petitioner no. 1 and forcibly took away both the minors (corpus) at gunpoint. Since then, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be in the illegal custody of respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that several applications were filed before different forums seeking custody of the minors; however, no effective action has been taken by the authorities. It is also submitted that a habeas corpus petition for seeking custody of a minor child, even from the other parent, is maintainable.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Rinku Ram @ Rinku Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and 7 others. Drawing attention to paragraph 16 of the said judgment, it is submitted that the Division Bench has clearly held that where a child is in the custody of another parent, the Court can invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, it is prayed that a direction be issued to respondent no. 4 to hand over custody of the corpus to the petitioner.

5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both minors have been residing with respondent no. 4 since the year 2022, and the petitioner has not availed any remedy under the Guardian and Wards Act till date. It is contended that the appropriate remedy for seeking custody of the minors is to approach the competent Family Court by filing a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act. It is further submitted that custody disputes between parents ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in Smt. Rinku Ram (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the custody of the minor was forcibly taken in violation of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, which had directed that custody be handed over to the mother. No such circumstance exists in the present case. Therefore, the present petition, seeking custody of minors from the father at the instance of the mother, is not maintainable.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the submissions advanced, it is evident that the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Rinku Ram (supra), in paragraph 16, observed that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction may be invoked where the welfare of the child so demands. It was observed in Paragraph-16:-

"16. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in