The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed a husband and his family to immediately return a three-year-old boy to his mother, ruling that separating a pregnant woman from her firstborn child constitutes grave cruelty.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the case, observed that the welfare of a child of such a tender age is generally best served under maternal care. The court ordered local police to ensure the child is safely returned to the mother and directed them to file a compliance affidavit within one week of the transfer.
Under the ruling, the mother must also provide the father with reasonable visitation access, taking into account the family’s convenience and the minor’s overall well-being.
Allegations Of Harassment And Forced Separation
The petitioner, represented by advocate Arun Abrol, stated that she entered a love marriage with her husband in August 2021. The couple, who had previously sought court protection from their parents, had a son in May 2023.
The woman alleged that her husband’s family began harassing her for dowry shortly after the marriage. She also claimed her husband struggled with drug addiction before relocating to Dubai for employment in December 2025.
According to her petition, escalating domestic issues forced her to leave the matrimonial home with her son in March 2026. She returned four days later after her husband allegedly called from abroad and threatened the lives of her father and brother. Upon her return, she claimed her in-laws threatened her, forced her out of the house, and kept the child. She reported the incident to the police and contacted the national women’s helpline in April 2026, but no action was taken to recover her child prior to the court filing.
Defense Contends Mother Left Voluntarily
In contrast, the husband’s family, represented by advocate Ritesh Pandey, argued that the woman had voluntarily abandoned her son at the matrimonial home in January 2026 when her husband went abroad.
The defense stated that the child was enrolled in a school and was receiving proper care from the extended family. They argued that the mother was unfit to care for the toddler due to her current pregnancy and the absence of female relatives in her own family, noting that her mother is deceased.
Furthermore, the husband’s counsel challenged the maintainability of the habeas corpus petition, arguing that such a plea cannot be filed against a father. The defense maintained that the mother should instead seek custody through legal remedies under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 or the Guardianship and Wards Act of 1890.
Rejecting these arguments, the high court noted that the husband’s petition contained no evidence indicating the mother was unsuitable to care for the child, aside from highlighting her pregnancy and financial dependency. The court concluded that other relatives, including the father, grandmother, uncles, and aunts, cannot care for a child of tender age in the manner a mother can.
