The Allahabad High Court held that a father, being a natural guardian, cannot be accused of illegal detention even if he forcibly takes custody of his child. The Court clarified that such an act becomes unlawful only if it violates a valid court order or legal prohibition.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her two minor children, holding that such a plea is not maintainable when the children are living with their father, who is recognised as a natural guardian under Hindu law.
The case arose after the petitioner alleged that her estranged husband had forcibly taken away their children at gunpoint in 2022 and had kept them under illegal detention since then. She approached the High Court seeking immediate custody of the minors through a writ of habeas corpus.
ALSO READ: Child Custody Laws in India: Legal Rights of Parents| Explained
However, Justice Anil Kumar-X refused to entertain the plea and relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Tejaswini Gaud and others vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others. The Court reiterated that habeas corpus petitions in child custody matters are maintainable only when the custody is clearly illegal or without lawful authority.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the mother had already approached multiple forums seeking custody, but no effective relief was granted. It was further submitted that courts have wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene in the best interest of the child, even when custody lies with the other parent. Reliance was placed on a recent High Court ruling in Rinku Ram alias Rinku Devi and another v. State of UP and seven others.
On the other hand, the State and the respondent-father opposed the petition, stating that the children have been living with the father since 2022 and that the mother had not pursued remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act before filing the writ petition. They also argued that custody disputes between parents are generally not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Slams Judge For Denying Urgent Hearing in Child’s Surgery Custody Case
The Court agreed with the submissions of the respondents and clarified that the earlier Rinku Ram judgment was based on very different facts. In that case, custody was taken in violation of a Child Welfare Committee order, whereas no such violation existed in the present matter.
Referring to Section 4(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court emphasised that the father is legally recognised as a natural guardian. Therefore, even if the allegation of forceful removal is accepted at face value, it does not automatically make the custody illegal.
The Court clearly observed,
“The father, being a natural guardian, cannot be said to have taken the minors out of lawful guardianship so as to attract any criminality.”
It further added,
“Such forcibly taking away will constitute an offence only if it has been done in violation of a legal order or legal prohibition,”
The bench also noted that both children, who are above five years of age, have been living with the father for the past few years, and there was no material placed on record to show that their custody is unlawful or harmful to their welfare.
In conclusion, the Court held that no exceptional circumstances were made out to justify interference under its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the habeas corpus petition as not maintainable.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Child Custody
