The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a Single Judge's order directing a father and his family to hand over custody of a four-year-old boy to his mother, holding that a habeas corpus petition for custody of a minor is maintainable and that the mother's claim under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act could not be displaced merely by the father's better financial position.

A Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur observed, "Financially stronger position of the father, or the investments made by him, cannot replace biological and emotional necessity of a mother's care for a four year old toddler."

The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the father and his family members against a judgment dated August 20, 2026, by which the Single Judge had allowed the mother's habeas corpus petition.

The mother's case was that the parties married in September 2018 and the child was born in April 2022. Following marital discord, she alleged, the child was forcibly taken away by the appellants on March 15, 2025, while she had gone to visit a doctor, and she was thereafter neither allowed into the matrimonial home nor given custody. She relied on Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, under which custody of a child below five years must ordinarily be with the mother.

Senior counsel for the appellants argued that habeas corpus is not maintainable in a custody dispute between parents, and that the mother's proper remedy was before the Civil Court under the 1956 Act. It was submitted that the child had been living in a comfortable, well-provided environment under the father's continuous care for over a year.

Rejecting the preliminary objection, the Bench relied on Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, Manju Tiwari v. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari, Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu and Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma. It noted that while a court may decline extraordinary jurisdiction where a detailed enquiry is needed and relegate the parties to the Civil Court, a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor is maintainable.

On merits, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and the rights of either parent must yield to it. Explaining the proviso to Section 6(a), the Bench held that the word "ordinarily" gives the Court discretion, but any departure must rest on circumstances showing that custody with the mother would harm the child's welfare.

"Unless it is established that the mother is unfit, immoral or incapable to take care of the minor, the custody of the child should normally be entrusted to her. Her right to custody remains paramount over the guardianship claim of any other relative of the child."

Noting that the appellants had alleged the mother left the matrimonial home on her own and did not meet the child despite opportunities, the Court found no material to show she was incapable or unsuitable to look after him. It held that the child having stayed with the father's family for some time could not by itself confer a right on them, "particularly when the circumstances in which mother came to be separated from the child are themselves in dispute."

The Bench observed that the Single Judge had struck a balance by granting the appellants visitation rights and leaving the father free to approach the Civil Court for permanent custody. Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sayyam Garg and Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sra, Advocates for the appellants.

Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate (through VC) for the respondent.