MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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

Similar News