Can't Conduct Detailed Inquiry Into Child's Welfare In Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, Remedy Lies Under Guardians & Wards Act: AP High Court

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his two minor daughters, who were residing with their maternal grandmother following the death of their mother under suspicious circumstances.

The father had already instituted proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act before the competent civil court.

Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, a guardian may seek custody of a minor by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent court, which conducts a detailed inquiry keeping the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.

Referring to the settled legal position governing habeas corpus petitions in child custody matters, the Court observed:

"We are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the minors being daughters aged 5 and 3 years, their mother having died, there been an FIR against the petitioner – father under Sections 498A & 306 IPC, and the minors being in the custody of the maternal grandmother, it is not apt case to invoke the extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ of Habeas Corpus. A detailed enquiry including the most, welfare of the minors, deserve to be conducted in the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, which cannot be made effectively at this stage, in a summary enquiry under Article 226 of Constitution of India."

The petitioner contended that he, being the natural guardian, was entitled to the custody of his two daughters, aged five and three years, who were allegedly being illegally detained by their maternal grandmother. He sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing that the children be produced before the Court and handed over to him.

The respondents contended that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable since the petitioner had already instituted guardianship proceedings under Sections 10, 17 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. They submitted that questions relating to the welfare and custody of the children required a detailed inquiry, which could not be undertaken in the writ court's summary proceedings.

Examining the facts, the Court noted that the children's mother had died under suspicious circumstances and that an FIR under Sections 498A and 306 IPC had been registered against the petitioner-father.

Considering the tender age of the children, their present custody with the maternal grandmother and the pending guardianship proceedings, the Court held that the dispute required a detailed examination of the children's welfare, which could not be undertaken in the summary jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Holding that no exceptional circumstances existed to invoke Article 226, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, leaving the custody claim to be decided in the pending guardianship proceedings.

Case Title: Kondrakunta Chandrakanth v. State of A.P. & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 8105 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Geetha Nallam

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Krishna Praneeth, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4; Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha for Respondent No. 5