The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a writ of habeas corpus, directing the return of a minor child to his natural father and affirming that Article 226 is available where a child’s detention by private respondents is unlawful, thereby shaping future custody litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sukhdeep Singh, is the biological father and natural guardian of the minor child, Master Harjaap Singh Sra, aged about four and a half years. In a divorce by mutual consent, respondent No.11 (the mother) expressly agreed that permanent custody would remain with the petitioner and that she would not claim custody thereafter. Despite this, the child was left with respondent Nos.8-10, who have retained him.
Key Facts
- 12.01.2026: Respondent No.11, arriving from Canada, made a statement before the Family Court (HMA Petition No.52 of 2026) that permanent custody would remain with the petitioner.
- 02.01.2026: Respondent No.11 arrived in India from Canada.
- 08.01.2026: Petitioner arrived in India.
- 17.01.2026: Respondent No.11 left the matrimonial home with the child, later returning to Canada, leaving the child with respondents Nos.8-10.
- 02.04.2026: FIR No.12 was lodged at Women Police Station, Dabwali under Sections 115, 316(2), 351(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging false allegations by the petitioner.
- 01.07.2026: Notice of motion issued in the present writ petition.
- 06.08.2026: Petition was reserved.
- 07.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Procedural History
- 01.07.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking habeas corpus and restoration of custody.
- 01.07.2026: Notice of motion issued; respondents filed separate replies.
- 07.08.2026: Court delivered its judgment, allowing the petition.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues that the settlement and the mother’s recorded statement give him lawful custody; the continued detention by respondents Nos.8-10 is illegal and contrary to the child’s welfare.
- Respondents Nos.8-11: Claim the mother’s statement was obtained under coercion; contend that custody matters fall under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, not the writ jurisdiction.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for a writ of habeas corpus ordering the respondents to produce the child, for the appointment of a warrant officer to search premises, and for restoration of custody to him.
