SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE

1. Mother of the minor child, who, at the time of institution of the petition was two years and four months old, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for immediate release of the child namely Suhaavi Sharma, who is in the custody of respondent No.4, her father.

2. The facts, as discernible from the pleadings of the parties are that petitioner is the lawfully wedded wife of respondent No.4. The parties were married on 15.02.2023 at Baltana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. Baby Suhaavi Sharma was born on 06.04.2024. Matrimonial life of petitioner and respondent No.4 was strained. Petitioner claims that she was subjected to continuous emotional, mental and physical cruelty by respondent No.4 whereas the claim of respondent No.4 is that petitioner was of quarrelsome nature,had psychological issues, suicidal tendencies and was a drug addict. In June 2025, petitioner, respondent No.4, his parents and the minor child shifted to Bangalore, where respondent No.4 was working. After some time, due to disputes, parents of respondent No.4 started living separately. Whatever be the reason of the marital discord, on 22.05.2026, petitioner booked a flight for herself and returned to her parents home at Barnala,alongwith the minor child. She sent a text message/call to respondent No.4 that she was leaving with the child. Respondent No.4 reported the departure of his wife with minor child to the local Police Station in Bangalore on 03.06.2026 vide Annexure R-4. Petitioner started living with the child in the house of her parents at Barnala. After about three months on 19.08.2026 at about 5.00 PM, respondent No.4 visited the parental home of petitioner and took the minor child away. FIR No.416 dated 20.08.2026 under Sections 333, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Barnala was registered against him on statement of the brother of petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the minor child was only two years and six months old, completely dependent on petitioner for her care, nourishment, safety and emotional well-being. Detention of the minor child by respondent No.4 raised genuine and grave apprehension regarding her safety, health and well-being as the child never remained away from her mother and could not even feed herself or communicate her needs. The child being of tender years, petitioner was her natural guardian and her custody must revert to the petitioner. Relying upon Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, 2019 AIR Supreme Court 2318, Jose Antonio Zalba Diez Del Corral alias Jose Antonio Zalba v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2024(12) SCC 419, Somprabha Rana & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2024(9) SCC 382, Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State of NCT of Delhi &Anr., 2017(8) SCC 454, Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2020(3) SCC 67, Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 885, Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, 2009(1) SCC (Civil), he argued that in the case of a child, who was less than five years of age, custody should ordinarily with mother. He further submitted that a Writ of Habeas Corpus was maintainable for restoration of custody of the minor even against the parent of child. The mother had an emotional bond with the child, was best equipped to take care of her and fulfil her physical and emotional needs. He thus, prayed that custody of the minor child, who was in illegal detention be restored to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand submits that respondent No.4 was the natural guardian of the child and the custody of the child could not be termed illegal. Welfare of the minor was with the father. Petitioner was quarrelsome in nature, she was habitual of picking fights, creating scenes in public and had psychologi