Signing you in

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was dealing with a habeas corpus plea by the mother seeking custody of her four-year-old son from her husband. The plea requires a person to be brought before a judge so the court can decide if they are being held legally.

“It is the categorical case of the petitioner that she was never allowed to re-enter the matrimonial home in March 2025 on return from a visit to the doctor. It may be reiterated here that the child is only of the age of four years old. He requires motherly care and affection to grow up as a secure and happy child. This is not to say that the presence of the father is not required, but only that at this tender age, the continuous and all-pervasive presence of the mother is imperative,” the court said on August 21.

The court noted that the couple married in September 2019 and the child was born in April 2022.

The mother alleged that in March 2025, while she had gone to see a doctor, her husband and his family took the child to her uncle’s house, where she was summoned and prevented from returning to the matrimonial home. The woman claimed that she was then denied access to the child except on a few occasions.

The mother approached the high court seeking a habeas corpus for the child’s custody. On behalf of the mother, Senior Advocate Kunal Dawa and advocate Shruti Mandhotra submitted that since the child was below five years, his custody should ordinarily remain with the mother under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Opposing the plea, the father’s counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, along with advocates Sayyam Garg and Kudrit Sra, argued that the child had been living with him for over a year in a safe and stable environment and that the mother should pursue remedies under the relevant guardianship laws.

The court held that a habeas corpus petition is maintainable in child-custody matters filed by one parent against another. It also has to make a preliminary assessment of where the child’s best interests and welfare lie. The judge noted that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the custody of a minor below five years should ordinarily be with the mother.

The court observed that the boy was about four years and four months old and required maternal care and affection to grow up as a secure and happy child. The court also noted that mediation had failed to produce a permanent settlement, although the mother had withdrawn her complaint and was able to meet the child on a few occasions.