IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:-18.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 23.02.2026 Uploaded on:-

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment GURDEEP SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Pardeep K. Bajaj, Advocate with Mr. Kuljeet Singh and Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 7.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing official respondents No. 1 to 4 to produce the minor child/detenue namely Gursher Singh, aged about 4 years, who has been illegally detained by private respondents No. 5 to 7 or any of their relatives, as the said minor/detenue has been illegally removed from the lawful custody of the petitioner from Denmark and in violation of Orders (Annexure P-4) passed by the Agency of Family Law, Denmark, by Respondent No. 7-Rekha, and has been brought to District Patiala, Punjab, India, and further to transfer his custody to the petitioner–father.

2. The petitioner–father, Gurdeep Singh, is a law-abiding citizen originally from District Patiala and presently a permanent resident of Denmark, who has approached this Hon’ble Court through his Special Power of Attorney holder seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production and custody of his minor son, Gursher Singh, aged about 4 years. The minor, a Danish citizen by birth, was residing in Denmark and was under the lawful custody of the petitioner pursuant to an order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Agency of Family Law, Denmark granting temporary custody to him. It is alleged that respondent no. 7–mother removed the child from Denmark in violation of the said order, fled from a Crisis Centre along with the minor, and brought him to District Patiala, where he is presently being kept in the custody of private respondents no. 5 and 6. Despite representation dated 31.03.2025 to the SSP, Patiala and subsequent proceedings, no effective action was taken for restoration of custody, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for recovery of the minor child from alleged illegal detention and for securing his welfare and safety. It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus in matters relating to custody of a minor child is maintainable and the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. Reliance is placed upon Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 152, wherein it was observed that exercise of writ jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters involving custody of a minor is guided primarily by the welfare of the child and is not confined merely to the question of legality of detention and Neha vs. State of Haryana, 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 643, wherein it was held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in matters concerning custody of a minor child.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 contended that the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in law. It is submitted that the minor child is neither in illegal detention nor in unlawful custody, but is residing with his natural mother i.e. respondent No. 7 and is being looked after by his maternal grandparents, respondents No. 5 and 6, in a safe and familiar environment. It is further argued that disputes relating to custody of a minor child cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in habeas corpus jurisdiction, particularly when complicated questions of fact and matrimonial discord are involved, which require adjudication by a competen