Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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