IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-10654-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2026 MAHIMA MAHAJAN ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate and Mr. Utkarsh Mathur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG Haryana.

Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swayam Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Tarannum Madan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-W-1839-2025

1. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the documents are taken on record as Annexures A-1 to A-3 subject to all just exceptions. Exemption is granted as prayed for.

2. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

3. Disposed of.

Main Case

1. By filing the instant petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of her minor daughter, namely Nayesha aged about 03 years 07 months, from the illegal custody of respondent No.2.

2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition is that she got married to respondent No.2-Akash Saxena on 01.02.2020 and out of the said wedlock, Nayesha (detenue) was born. However, the marriage of the petitioner could not go well as the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and physical abuse at the hands of private respondent who used to abuse and give merciless beatings on account of demand of dowry and it is alleged that the petitioner and the minor child (detenue) were shunned out of the matrimonial house and threatened not to come back without bringing dowry as demanded.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner and her family members were invited by the private respondents to hold an urgent meeting and upon meeting the private respondents, they deliberately took the custody of the minor daughter from the petitioner without her consent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the minor child is in custody of his father, which can’t be said to be unlawful. Hence, he prays that the present petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that a petition under Guardian and Wards Act is pending adjudication.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended along with the petition.

7. This Court has noticed an increasing tendency amongst disgruntled parents and other family members to move a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus, in order to settle custody of the children. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Tejaswini Gaud and others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari’, 2019 AIR SC 2318, speaking through Justice R. Banumathi, has opined as follows:

“18. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court . Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.

19. In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising