The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment, clarifying the law regarding the maintainability of habeas corpus petitions in cases involving the custody of minor children. The ruling came in the case of Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi & Others [Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2024], where the Court addressed the complex issue of whether a habeas corpus petition is appropriate for resolving disputes over the custody of a minor child.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Gautam Kumar Das, a resident of Delhi, faced a heartbreaking sequence of events in 2021 when he lost his wife, Subrata Das, to COVID-19, just ten days after the birth of their daughter, Sugandha Das. Struggling to cope with the loss, Gautam Das temporarily handed over the custody of his two children to his sister-in-law (respondent No. 5) as an interim measure.
While custody of his son, Divyanshu Das, was eventually returned to him, the custody of his daughter, Sugandha, was retained by his sister-in-law, allegedly under the pretext that the young girl required continued care from a female guardian. Subsequently, the sister-in-law moved the child to her maternal home in West Bengal and further refused Gautam Das access to his daughter, leading him to file multiple legal complaints, which saw no action.
In July 2023, Gautam Das sought custody of his daughter under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, but was forced to withdraw the case following an order by the High Court of Delhi, which directed the parties to approach a family court instead. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Gautam Das filed a writ petition for habeas corpus in the High Court of Delhi, seeking the immediate return of his daughter. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, advising him to seek custody through appropriate channels in family court.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition in custody matters, particularly when alternative legal remedies, such as proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, are available. Habeas corpus, traditionally used to address unlawful detention, has been increasingly invoked in custody disputes, prompting the need for judicial clarification on its applicability.
The appellant, represented by Advocate Shri Saurav Agrawal, argued that as the natural guardian and only surviving biological parent of Sugandha Das, he should not be forced to undergo protracted legal battles to secure custody of his own child. He contended that the High Court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition was contrary to established legal principles, including those laid down in the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, particularly in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari.
On the other hand, respondents, represented by Advocate Shri Hirein Sharma, contended that the appellant voluntarily relinquished custody of his daughter and was now barred from using habeas corpus as a remedy, given the alternative legal avenues available.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Delivering the judgment, Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice K.V. Viswanathan concurring, held that while the general principle discourages the use of habeas corpus in cases where alternative remedies are available, the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration. The Court reiterated that there is no hard and fast rule regarding the maintainability of habeas corpus petitions in custody disputes; instead, each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances.
The Court observed:
“The paramount consideration in all matters concerning custody of minor children is the welfare of the child. In this case, the appellant, being the natural guardian, is justified in invoking the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not adequately considering the appellant’s status as the natural guardian and his ability to care for his daughter following his remarriage. The Court noted that the appellant, as an Assistant General Manager in Central Warehousing Corporation, Delhi, was well-equipped to provide for the child’s needs, including her education and overall welfare.
Quoting from the judgment, the Court stated:
“Merely because of the unfortunate circumstances faced by the appellant, which led to temporary custody being given to respondent Nos. 5 and 6, cannot be a ground to deny him custody of his minor daughter, who has now gelled well with her natural family.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and directing that custody of the minor child, Sugandha Das, be handed over to her father, Gautam Kumar Das, immediately. However, in a gesture aimed at maintaining familial bonds, the Court permitted the respondents to visit the child every Wednesday at the appellant’s residence.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
– Appellant: Gautam Kumar Das
– Respondents: NCT of Delhi, and others
– Counsel for Appellant: Shri Saurav Agrawal
– Counsel for Respondents: Shri Hirein Sharma
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2024
