Back
Father’s Bid for Daughter Denied: HP High Court Points to Guardian Court Route
In a swift ruling, the dismissed a petition filed by Bangkok-based father Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni seeking custody of his eight-year-old daughter Yashika. The bench, led by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi , emphasized that such extraordinary writs are not the forum for custody battles between parents when the child's whereabouts are known, directing the petitioner instead to the appropriate .
A Marriage Spanning Continents, Ending in Separation
The couple married on , with Yashika born on , in Kangra district near Dharamshala. Their registered union ( ) saw them move across Chandigarh, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and finally Bangkok, where Himanshu still resides. Tensions escalated in October 2025 when the mother, Divya Himanshu Kulkarni, traveled to India with Yashika. After a post-Diwali hospitalization in late November and her brother's arrival, Divya left Bangkok on . Himanshu returned two days later to find the child's belongings gone. Despite family conference calls and pleas for counseling, contact broke down, with Divya's father confirming her arrival in Dharamshala.
Himanshu's petition highlighted risks to Yashika's emotional well-being and education, urging immediate restoration to her prior school and unobstructed custody handover.
Petitioner's Cry for Swift Justice vs. Mother's Silence
The father invoked Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (AIR 2019 SC 2318) , arguing maintainability even in family disputes if custody appears illegal. He stressed urgency: abroad, affidavit attested in Pune, child uprooted from Thailand amid potential harm.
No arguments surfaced from the mother or state, as the court focused on procedural fitness. The vacation judge had already flagged maintainability issues on .
Drawing Lines: When Takes a Backseat
The bench dissected precedents to clarify boundaries. While Tejaswini Gaud upheld a father's claim against deceased wife's siblings, it distinguished parental rivalries. Referencing its own Saurav Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.W.P. No. 11 of 2023, ) , the court reiterated: Guardian Courts, not writ benches, resolve evidence-based custody via ordinary remedies.
Supreme Court rulings reinforced this: Sayed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana (2001) 5 SCC 247 , Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 8 SCC 454 , Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 12 SCC 472 , and Somprabha Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 9 SCC 382 . is a " " for illegal detention sans legal authority—not spousal tugs-of-war with alternatives available.
Crucially, Dharamshala's specifics undercut "unknown whereabouts" claims. Territorial jurisdiction lies there, promising sensitivity to the father's overseas plight and child's relocation.
Bench's Blunt Observations
The court pulled no punches in key excerpts:
"proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody.proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court... the writ is issued where... ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective."
On parental disputes:
"[I]t would be the Guardian Court as such, which would go into the issue regarding the custody on the basis of the evidence as such and it would not be for theas such to deal with the issue of, once the dispute is between husband and wife."
And on expedited relief:
"[T]he Court will be sensitive to the said issue and it will ensure that the matter is taken up at the earliest, on filing of the petition which may be preferred before the said Court."
Dismissed, But Doors Not Shut
"Resultantly, we do not entertain the present petition keeping in view the settled position of law. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, a liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for appropriate relief."
This leaves Himanshu free to file afresh in Dharamshala, where courts must prioritize child welfare—potentially fast-tracking Yashika's stability. For future cases, it cements: know the address, pick the right court; no shortcut via high court writs in family feuds.
The decision, dated , underscores as an exceptional tool, preserving Guardian Courts for nuanced custody calls.
