Maternal Care Indispensable For Development: P&H High Court Restores Custody Of 6-Year-Old Girl To Mother

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted a mother custody of her six-and-a-half-year-old daughter, who had been with the paternal family since October 2025. The Court observed that the custody of a child of tender age should ordinarily rest with the mother.

Justice Sumeet Goel said,

“The custody of a minor child, who is of tender age, should ordinarily rest with the mother as it is a well settled principle that children of such a tender age stand in need of maternal affection, nurture and care, which are indispensible for their holistic development.”

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner-mother sought the production of her minor daughter and the return of her custody from the private respondents, her in-laws.

The petitioner married in December 2014, and the child was born in March 2020. Her husband went to Kuwait for employment and settled there, while she stayed at the matrimonial home with her in-laws.

She alleged that during her husband's absence, a relative from the matrimonial family sent her inappropriate messages, made unwanted advances and once attempted to molest her. When she raised this with her in-laws, they allegedly asked her to stay silent.

She left the matrimonial home on October 4, 2025, with her daughter. She alleged that on the way, the private respondents snatched the child from her, and she had to go to her parental home alone. Her complaint to the police allegedly produced no effective action. A panchayat convened by her parents also failed to secure the child's return.

She further alleged that one of the respondents, a married woman who had already adopted her own brother's child, had effectively taken over the girl's custody. During the pendency of the petition, the parties were referred to the High Court's Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but mediation failed.

Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the child was being deprived of motherly care at a crucial stage of growth. Counsel also argued that the respondents' conduct violated the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which gives the mother a preferential right to custody of a minor child.

The private respondents called the petition misconceived and the allegations false and an afterthought. They argued, the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home; the child was being properly cared for by her grandparents, which could not be termed illegal detention and the police enquiry had found the allegations against the relative false and unsubstantiated.

The State said it was not a contesting party on the custody question.

Justice Goel relied on the Court's earlier decision in Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:113490), which drew on a line of Supreme Court rulings and held that, Habeas corpus in child custody matters ordinarily requires that the custody be demonstrably illegal, though this may be relaxed in the child's interest. The writ is not a substitute for proceedings under the guardianship statutes.

The child's welfare remains the paramount consideration, and the Court may act as parens patriae.

The Court noted that the birth certificate on record prima facie established the petitioner's relationship with the child. It said the allegations against the private respondents were not being treated as established. However, those allegations, together with the circumstances of the child's separation from her mother, raised a concern that “cannot be brushed aside at this stage.”

The bench observed that custody disputes cannot be decided solely on the status of a parent or relative. The relevant considerations include the child's safety, the nature of the relationship and the proposed custodian's ability to provide a stable, nurturing environment.

It added that permanent custody requires a more comprehensive assessment by the competent court. Even so, the existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, foreclose the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the child is six and a half years old. the petitioner does not appear to suffer from any economic deprivation and the private respondents had shown nothing to suggest that the mother could not take good care of the child.

In the light of the above, the Court held that custody “ought to be with the mother, for the nonce.”

The petition was disposed of with the following directions that the petitioner-mother is entitled to custody of the child.