When Detailed Enquiry Is Needed To Determine Interest & Welfare Of Minor Child, HC Cannot Entertain Habeas Corpus Plea In Custody Matters: SC
The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot entertain a habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when a detailed enquiry is required to determine the interest and welfare of a minor child in custody matters.
The Bench clarified that such an exercise could only be done in proceedings under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the Act), whenever a detailed enquiry involving the welfare of the minor child and his preference was required.
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Compelling a minor child at the tender age of 7 years to withdraw from the custody of his grandparents with whom he has been living for the last about 5 years may cause psychological disturbances…In our view, an exercise for promoting the bond between the minor child and the respondent-father in a graded manner and thereafter considering the grant of custody of minor child to the respondent-father taking into consideration the paramount interest of the welfare of the minor child would be required to be done in the present matter. Such an exercise would not be permissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Sr. Advocate Narender Hooda represented the appellant, while AAG Hemant Gupta appeared for the respondents.
The grandmother contested the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision, which granted the father's petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking custody of the minor child. The demise of the child's mother led to a custody dispute between the father and the maternal grandmother.
During the death investigation, the father initially entrusted the grandmother with custody by designating her as the minor child's "Guardian," but later petitioned the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to regain custody, alleging fraud by the grandmother.
The CWC determined the child as "in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and considering the father's biological relationship and stable government job directed the transfer of custody from the grandmother to the father.
The High Court, taking into consideration the principle that “welfare of the child is of paramount consideration,” held that the welfare of the child was at best in the hands of the father.
Noting the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court pointed out that the father himself had placed the minor child in the custody of the grandmother. “It can thus clearly be seen that it is not a case that the appellant-grandmother had illegally kept the custody of the minor child,” the Court added.
The Court held that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the Court clarified that “no observation in the impugned judgment and order and in the present judgment and order would be binding on the proceedings if taken by the respondentfather under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the proceedings would be decided in accordance with law on its own merits.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 370)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Narender Hooda; AOR Surender Singh Hooda; Advocates Shaurya Lamba, Shiv Bhatnagar, Sachin Bhati and Sukhmani Bajwa
Respondents: AAG Hemant Gupta; AOR Neelam Singh and Monika Gusain; Advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Kanwar Udai Bhan Singh Sehrawat, Ankit Ambasta, Shrinkar Chaturvedi, Kailashi Uday Kapoor, Payal Gupta, Shivang Jain, Nitikaa Guptha and Monica Anand Kumar
