Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus in Minor Custody Case, Respects Child’s Choice to Stay with Mother

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, dismissed a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus involving the custody of a minor post-divorce, emphasizing the minor’s voluntary decision to stay with her mother.

The key legal issue addressed was whether a writ of Habeas Corpus could be invoked in a case where a minor child, post-divorce, was allegedly being illegally detained by a parent.

The petitioner, Kapil Dev, sought the recovery of his minor daughter, alleging illegal detention by her mother (respondent No.4), following a divorce decree that granted him custody. The court was tasked with determining whether the child’s stay with her mother constituted illegal detention.

Justice Gill carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the minor’s residence with her mother. The court’s intervention began with the appointment of a Warrant Officer to ascertain the facts. The Officer’s report was pivotal, revealing that the minor expressed a clear preference to live with her mother and was doing so out of her own free will.

Justice Gill noted, “In view of the stated position, wherein it is found that the alleged detenue is residing out of her own free will with none else but her mother and she wishes to reside there, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of any kind of direction is not warranted.” This observation underscored the court’s reliance on the minor’s expressed wishes.

Based on these findings, the High Court declined to issue any directive for the recovery of the minor, stating that no intervention was warranted in this case. However, the court left the door open for the petitioner to explore other legal avenues for custody, if so desired.

Date of Decision: 16th February 2024.

Kapil Dev Vs. The State of Punjab and Others

Latest Legal News