IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-9506-2025 Date of decision: 05.09.2025 SAPNA ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.6 and has filed his vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.

2. By filing the instant petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of her minor son, namely Himanshu aged about 11 months, from the illegal custody of respondent No.6.

3. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition is that she got married to respondent No.6-Bunty @ Banti on 23.02.2023 and out of the said wedlock, Himanshu (detenue) was born on 01.09.2024. 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.

4. As a matter of fact, one panchayati compromise was effected between the parties on 08.04.2025 wherein the private respondent/husband assured that he would not beat the petitioner and subsequently the petitioner along with the minor child (detenue) went with the husband. However, again the husband of the petitioner dealt the petitioner and the child with cruelty for demand of dowry and again the petitioner and the minor child (detenue) were shunned out of the matrimonial home on 22.04.2025. Later, on 05.05.2025 both the parties including the respectables of the society were called at P.S. Kuk, Kurukshetra to resolve the issue but no compromise could take place and private respondent sought time till 11.06.2025. However, when the petitioner and her minor child (detenue) was about to leave the premises of police station, the private respondent forcibly and illegally snatched the minor child (detenue)

from the petitioner without the consent of the petitioner and ran away.

5. As per the directions given vide order dated 01.09.2025 the private respondent is present in Court with the alleged detenue.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a petition under Guardian and Wards Act was filed by the present petitioner in the Family Court, Camp Assand, Karnal which is pending adjudication.

7. 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.

8. 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 issu