UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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