The Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded the custody of a four-year-old boy to his mother, ruling that the welfare of a young child is paramount and that children of tender age require continuous maternal care and affection to grow up secure and happy.
Delivering the order on August 21, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother against her husband, affirming that custody disputes between estranged parents can be examined through habeas corpus proceedings to safeguard a child’s best interests.
Legal Framework and Welfare Assessment
The court underscored that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the custody of a minor below five years of age should ordinarily reside with the mother.
Justice Bedi noted that while the role of a father is necessary, the all-pervasive and constant presence of a mother is essential for a toddler’s emotional well-being. The court observed that the child, aged approximately four years and four months, required immediate maternal nurturing.
Submissions by the Parties
Appearing on behalf of the mother, Senior Advocate Kunal Dawa and Advocate Shruti Mandhotra submitted that statutory provisions explicitly favour maternal custody for children under five years old.
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, along with Advocates Sayyam Garg and Kudrit Sra for the father, argued that the boy had lived in a stable and secure environment with his father for more than a year. The counsel contended that the mother should seek relief through standard guardianship legislation rather than a habeas corpus petition.
The court rejected the maintainability objection, ruling that the high court holds the jurisdiction to make a preliminary assessment regarding where the child’s overall welfare lies.
Dispute and Background
The couple married in September 2019, and their son was born in April 2022.
According to the petitioner, the dispute intensified in March 2025 when she visited a medical practitioner. She alleged that her husband and his relatives took the child to her uncle’s residence, called her there, and subsequently barred her from returning to her matrimonial home. The mother stated that she was thereafter denied regular access to her son.
The court observed that prior mediation attempts had failed to achieve a permanent resolution between the spouses, even though the mother had withdrawn an earlier complaint and had been granted limited opportunities to meet the child.
