The Rajasthan High Court exercised its habeas corpus jurisdiction to direct the transfer of custody of a 17-year-old girl to her mother after she informed the court of her voluntary association with the respondent and her desire to return home.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioner, Leela Bai, filed a habeas corpus petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the production and release of her daughter, Mst. 'R', who was allegedly being held in illegal detention by respondent No.4, Nitesh.
Key Facts
- The corpus, Mst. 'R', is aged about 17 years and had studied up to the 8th class.
- The petitioner alleged that respondent No.4 had taken Mst. 'R' to Ahmedabad without her consent.
- The petitioner claimed that Mst. 'R' was being illegally detained by respondent No.4.
- The respondents included the State of Rajasthan, the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand, and the Station House Officer of Police Station-Shrinathji Mandir, Nathdawara.
Procedural History
- Date of filing: The habeas corpus petition (HCP No. 414/2026) was filed before the Rajasthan High Court.
- Date of production: Pursuant to the court's directions, the corpus Mst. 'R' was produced before the court on 21.07.2026.
- Date of hearing: The matter was heard on 21.07.2026.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner's stance: The petitioner claimed that Mst. 'R' was being illegally detained by respondent No.4 and sought her immediate release into her custody.
- Respondent's stance: The respondents did not contest the petition but facilitated the production of the corpus before the court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the production of Mst. 'R' and her release into her custody, along with safe passage to her parental home.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the court could exercise its habeas corpus jurisdiction to direct the custody of a minor girl to her mother based on her voluntary statement before the court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of child welfare to argue that the corpus, being a minor, was entitled to protection and custody with her mother.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not oppose the petition and facilitated the production of the corpus before the court. No substantive arguments were advanced on their behalf.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the corpus, Mst. 'R', who stated that she was 17 years old and had gone to Ahmedabad with respondent No.4 of her own free will. She further stated that she now wished to return to her parental home and live with her mother.
The Court observed that since the corpus was a minor girl, her welfare was of paramount importance. The Court noted that the corpus had made a voluntary statement before it, expressing her desire to return to her mother.
The Court relied on the principles of parens patriae and the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a signatory. The Court held that the custody of the minor girl should be handed over to her mother to ensure her safety and welfare.
"We have conferred with the corpus Mst. 'R'. She stated that she is 17 years of age and has studied up till 8 th class. She stated that she had gone with the respondent No.4 to Ahemdabad of her own free will and now wants to go and live with the present petitioner and her parents."
The Court directed the investigating agency to ensure the safe transfer of the corpus to her parental home.
The Verdict
The court allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed the investigating agency to hand over the custody of Mst. 'R' to the petitioner. The corpus was to be safely escorted to her parental home. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction Extends to Minors
Practitioners should note that the court's habeas corpus jurisdiction extends to minors, particularly when their welfare is at stake. The court may intervene to ensure the safety and well-being of a minor, even if the minor's statement is voluntary.
Voluntary Statement of Minor Given Due Weight
- The court accorded significant weight to the voluntary statement of the minor, Mst. 'R', in determining her custody.
- Practitioners should ensure that minors are given a safe and supportive environment to express their wishes before the court.
Investigating Agency's Role in Safe Transfer
- The court directed the investigating agency to ensure the safe transfer of the minor to her parental home.
- Practitioners should coordinate with the investigating agency to facilitate the safe and smooth transfer of custody in such cases.
