Bombay High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition by Father Seeking Custody of Twin from Grandmother. Writ of Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable for Child Custody Dispute Between Family Members When Child is in Lawful Custody of Grandmother.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 99
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Pravin Nathalal Parghi, is the biological father of 5-year-old twins. One son, Mst. Lakshya Parghi, is in the custody of the petitioner, while the other, Mst. Lavya Parghi, is in the custody of respondent No. 5, who is the mother of the petitioner (the grandmother). The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking direction to the police to procure custody of Mst. Lavya Parghi from respondent No. 5 and hand him over to the petitioner. The court examined the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition. The court held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for custody disputes between family members when the child is not in illegal detention. The proper remedy for custody is under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or other family law proceedings. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the child was with the grandmother and the father had access. The court did not find any illegal detention warranting habeas corpus relief.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus - Child Custody - Writ of Habeas Corpus - The court considered whether a writ of habeas corpus lies for custody of a child when the child is with the grandmother and there is no allegation of illegal detention. Held that habeas corpus is not maintainable for custody disputes between family members; the proper remedy is under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or other family law proceedings. (Paras 1-4)

B) Family Law - Child Custody - Best Interest of Child - The court noted that the child was with the grandmother and the father had access; the court declined to interfere in habeas corpus jurisdiction as the child was not in illegal detention. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for custody of a child when the child is in the lawful custody of a grandmother and there is no illegal detention.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

Law Points

  • Habeas Corpus
  • Child Custody
  • Writ Jurisdiction
  • Best Interest of Child
  • Guardians and Wards Act
  • 1890
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 149

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 2374 of 2025

2025-09-04

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD

2025:BHC-AS:37140-DB

Ms. M. J. Reena Roland a/w Aishwarya Bhandary for the Petitioner, Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Ms. Parul Shah i/b. Pratibha Bangera for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, Mr. Mohd. Rafik Gavandi, P.S.I., Malad Police Station, Mumbai.

Pravin Nathalal Parghi

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ of Habeas Corpus for custody of a minor child.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing Respondent No. 4 (Police) to procure custody of Mst. Lavya Parghi from Respondent No. 5 and hand him over to the Petitioner.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claims that his son Mst. Lavya Parghi is in the custody of Respondent No. 5 (the grandmother) and seeks his return.

Issues

Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for custody of a child when the child is in the lawful custody of a grandmother and there is no illegal detention.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the child should be in his custody as the biological father. Respondents argued that the child is with the grandmother and there is no illegal detention; habeas corpus is not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable for child custody disputes between family members when the child is not in illegal detention. The proper remedy is under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or other family law proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner is the biological father of 5-year-old twins. The present Petition seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing Respondent No. 4 (Police) to procure the custody of the Mst. Lavya Parghi from Respondent No.5 and hand him over to the Petitioner.

Procedural History

The petition was filed on 22 August 2025 and heard finally on 4 September 2025. Rule was made returnable forthwith.

Acts & Sections

  • Guardians and Wards Act, 1890:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Government Appeal Against Declaration of Lapsed Land Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Possession Taken Prior to Act...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment Allowing Sales Tax Exemption to Assessee Under Industrial Policy Resolutions. Exemption Requires Manufacturing Activity and Emergence of New Goods; High Court Failed to Examine Actual Process and Statutory...