Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Singh Bhanot vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 December, 2025
CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
283
CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.12.2025
Amit Singh Bhanot ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate
for respondents No. 4 to 6.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for obtaining the custody of his minor son namely Jai Singh Bhanot, who is alleged to be in illegal custody of respondents No. 4 to 6.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case as set up by the petitioner are that his marriage was solemnized with respondent No. 4 Gurupriya Singh Bhanot on 05.02.2016 at Zirakpur as per Hindu rites and rituals. This was the second marriage of the petitioner as he was a divorcee. Out of his wedlock with respondent No. 4, a male child was born on 24.10.2019, who is the alleged detenue. It is alleged that on 07.07.2020, respondent No. 4 started quarrelling with the petitioner and abusing him and ultimately she left his company along with the newly born child. He had tried to prevail good sense 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:31 ::: CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -2- upon the private respondents but to no avail. Ultimately, the petitioner had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent No. 4, which is still pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula. The petitioner is a British Citizen. Even the child has got the citizenship of Britain by birth and has been issued a passport by the said country. The child has been issued a stay visa by Indian Government which has expired on 23.08.2022 and has not been renewed till date. The petitioner, when came back to India, has come to know that respondent No. 4 has left the child at Nangal with her mother and she herself is residing at New Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 4 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child from the petitioner and the act of respondent No. 4 is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to the petitioner as well as child as he was of tender age and needed the care and company of his father for his upbringing. While submitting that the private respondents are mistreating the minor child and not maintaining him properly, it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued for release of the alleged detenue. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2024 SCC Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC Online P&H 4267, CRWP-9996-2020, titled as Ramita Rani vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 02.03.2021, CRWP-8319-2020, titled as Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2021 SCC Online P&H 1060.
4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. In terms of the same, learned State counsel has submitted that the minor child is residing at village Bhabour Sahib, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar along with his mother 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 ::: CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -3- i.e. respondent No. 4 and studying in LKG Class in Captain Amol Kalia Senior Secondary School, Nangal. It is further argued that since the child is in the custody of his mother, the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance.
5. Reply, on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6, has also been filed, wherein while denying the allegations as levelled by the petitioner, it is submitted that since respondent No. 4 is natural mother of the child, she cannot be stated to be in illegal custody of the child and the present petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 has never mistreated the child and rather, she is properly taking care of him, being his mother and is also discharging her responsibilities properly. The petitioner has already filed a divorce petition, which is pending. He has alternative remedy for seeking custody of the child. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 has relied upon the authorities cited as Mrs. Kanika Goel vs. State of Delhi through SHO and another : 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 844, Somprabha Rana and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. : 2024 INSC 664, Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. : 2024 SCC Online SC 758, Anju Sharma vs. State of Haryana and other :
2024 NCPHHC 106868, Amandeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others :
2023 (1) RCR (Criminal) 47, Neelu Talotra vs. State of Punjab and ors.: 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 451 and Lalit Mohan vs. State of Punjab and ors. : 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 72.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 4 on 05.02.2016 and out of the wedlock, one male child (alleged detenue) was born on 24.10.2019.
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 :::
CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -4-
Since the relationship between the parties became sour, due to the reasons best known to them, they started living separately. As per allegations of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child and is not properly maintaining him. The question that arises before this Court for consideration is as to whether the custody of the minor child with respondent No. 4 can be stated to be illegal, warranting issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing his release from her custody?
8. No doubt, this Court while dealing with a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with regard to custody of a minor child may direct return of the child or decline to change the custody of the child keeping in mind all the attending facts and circumstances. However, such decision must depend on the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case brought before the Court. A writ of habeas corpus in child custody matters can be invoked only in those cases where the person having the child is not entitled to his/her legal custody. In child custody matters remedy lies only under Guardianship and Wards Act and it cannot be bypassed by filing a habeas corpus petition unless the corpus of the child is in illegal or unauthorized custody. Reliance in this can be placed upon Pavan Kumar Kathuroju vs. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 31. Reliance can also be placed upon Nirmala's case (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and others : 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 577 has held that the habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and recourse to such a remedy should not be permitted unless the ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective. It has been held that in child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 ::: CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -5- detention of a minor is by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody and in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 885.
9. Reference can also be made to authority cited as Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : (2017) 8 SCC 454, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in a habeas corpus petition, the High Court must examine at the threshold whether the minor is in lawful or unlawful custody of another person/respondent named in the writ petition. In Kanika Goel's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a minor girl child had USA passport and had travelled to India on tenured Visa, which had expired. The child was with her biological mother. It was observed that it did not mean that she was in unlawful custody. The order of High Court directing the wife to return to USA along with minor daughter was set aside and it was directed that the custody of minor child would remain with the mother until she attained the majority or the Court of competent jurisdiction, trying issue of custody of minor child, ordered to the contrary. In Anju Sharma's case (supra), it was observed by this Court that in child custody matters, the power of High Court in granting writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In 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 out of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the Court is 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 ::: CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -6- determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the Court exercises such jurisdiction. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ Court rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the Court is of the view that a detailed inquiry is required, it may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil Court. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition for habeas corpus.
10. In Vasudha Shetty and others vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar and another :
AIR 2022 SC 476, it was observed that a writ Court, while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus, cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of the parent, it will offend his/her right to privacy. A parent has to be given an option to go abroad with the child. Now, in issue of custody of a minor, whether a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. In Amandeep Kaur's case (supra), the mother of a minor child had filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking production of minor child and handing over custody as well as passport to her. The child was in custody of his father. He had not removed child in violation of any order passed by any competent authority. He was in custody of the child for a period of more than four years and three months before the petition seeking to invoke the writ of habeas for the purpose had been filed. It was observed that no circumstance alleged or urged in the petition indicates that there was any eminent danger to the life and liberty of the child. There was no prima facie material to establish as to how vesting of custody of child with the 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 ::: CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -7-
mother was in best interest of child as only ground urged was that the child was a citizen of Italy. It was held that the reasons cited by the mother for directly approaching the High Court instead of taking recourse to alternative efficacious remedy as per law did not fall within recognized exceptions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various judicial pronouncements and the writ petition filed by the mother was dismissed.
11. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 4 is the biological mother of alleged detenue, who was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Hence, it cannot be stated that his custody with respondent No. 4 is illegal in any manner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, by virtue of a Court order, was either given custody of the child or was given some visitation rights so that it can be stated that by separating the child from the petitioner or denying his visitation rights, respondent No. 4 has defied the said order. The matter was even referred to Mediation Centre but no amicable settlement could be materialized. This Court had even an interaction with the child in the retiring room and he did not appear to be interested in meeting the petitioner. He is stated to be living with his mother/respondent No. 4 and is studying in a good school. So far as the ratio of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not disputed at all. However, the same is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is held that no direction can be issued to the private respondents to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner.
12. In view of the discussion as made above and without making any comment on the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 ::: CRWP-3016-2025 (O&M) -8- each other, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the petitioner to issue any direction to the private respondents for handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
13. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.
09.12.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 27-12-2025 11:44:32 :::