Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a custody dispute over a minor child, Garvit, born on 5th July 2015 to Dr. Kulwant Singh (respondent-father) and Sangeeta. The marriage took place on 5th July 2014, and both parties were previously married. In 2019, Sangeeta went missing, leading to an FIR under Section 346 IPC, later converted to Section 304B IPC after her body was found in a canal. During the investigation, the respondent-father voluntarily handed over the minor child to the appellant-grandmother (maternal grandmother) and executed an affidavit on 1st May 2019 appointing her as guardian of the child and caretaker of a property gifted to the child. The child remained with the grandmother. On 29th July 2019, the father filed a complaint before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) alleging that the grandmother took the child by cheating and fraud. The CWC, by order dated 5th February 2020, declared the child as a child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and directed custody to the father. The grandmother appealed under Section 101 of the JJ Act, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, allowed the appeal on 11th February 2020, holding that the CWC lacked jurisdiction and the child was not in need of care and protection. The father then filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking habeas corpus for the child's release from alleged illegal custody. The High Court, by judgment dated 23rd August 2022, allowed the petition, holding that the welfare of the child lies with the father, and directed the grandmother to hand over custody, with visiting rights. Aggrieved, the grandmother appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard arguments: the grandmother contended that the custody was not illegal as it was voluntarily given by the father, and the High Court should not have entertained habeas corpus but relegated the father to remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The father argued that he is the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and is well-educated and capable of caring for the child. The Supreme Court analyzed the maintainability of habeas corpus in child custody cases, relying on precedents such as Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan. The Court held that habeas corpus is not maintainable when the custody is not illegal; the father voluntarily handed over custody and appointed the grandmother as guardian, so the custody was lawful. The proper remedy for custody disputes is under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where the court can determine the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, directing that the child remain with the grandmother and that the father may seek custody through appropriate proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Child Custody - Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - The issue was whether a habeas corpus petition lies for custody of a minor child when the child is with a maternal grandmother who was voluntarily given custody by the father and appointed as guardian by affidavit. The Supreme Court held that habeas corpus is not maintainable when custody is not illegal; the proper remedy is under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The High Court's order allowing habeas corpus was set aside. (Paras 10-14) B) Family Law - Natural Guardian - Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - The father is the natural guardian of a minor child. However, the father's voluntary act of handing over custody and appointing the grandmother as guardian by affidavit does not make the custody illegal. The father's status as natural guardian does not automatically entitle him to habeas corpus relief. (Paras 7-8, 12) C) Juvenile Justice - Child in Need of Care and Protection - Section 2(14) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The Child Welfare Committee had declared the child as a child in need of care and protection, but the Appellate Court set aside that order, holding that the CWC lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the child was not in need of care and protection as he was with his grandmother. (Paras 3.8-3.10) D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Habeas Corpus - The High Court's exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction was improper because the custody was not illegal. The proper remedy for custody disputes between parents and relatives is under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable for custody of a minor child when the child is in the custody of a maternal grandmother who was voluntarily appointed as guardian by the father, and whether the High Court erred in allowing such petition without relegating the father to remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 23rd August 2022, and directed that the minor child shall remain in the custody of the appellant-grandmother. The respondent-father is at liberty to seek custody of the child by filing appropriate proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the court hearing such proceedings shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
Law Points
- Habeas corpus not maintainable for child custody when custody is not illegal
- Welfare of child is paramount
- Natural guardian under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- 1956
- Jurisdiction of Child Welfare Committee under Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015
