Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable for Long-Standing Child Custody; Father Left to Competent Court: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner married the daughter of respondents Nos. 4 and 7, and a son was born to them. After matrimonial discord, the couple lived separately from 2020; matrimonial proceedings began in 2023, and during them the wife died in a road accident (para 2). The child stayed with his maternal relatives. The father, claiming to be the natural guardian, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention and relied on Tejaswini Gaud and Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh (para 3), but restricted his prayer to maintainability (para 1). The State and the private respondents argued that an alternative remedy existed and that the child, now in LKG and cared for, was not illegally detained (para 4).

Deciding maintainability only (para 6), the Bench relied on Tejaswini Gaud: habeas corpus lies only where the ordinary remedy is unavailable or ineffective, and where a detailed enquiry is needed the court may decline the extraordinary jurisdiction (para 7); Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh followed it (para 7). Only exceptional cases qualify, such as where illegal detention of a minor is substantially proved. Since his mother's death the child has lived with his maternal grandfather and maternal uncle, so he cannot be said to be under illegal detention (para 7). Otherwise anyone could bypass the alternative remedy (para 8). A custody claim has an effective statutory remedy with a detailed inquiry focused on the child's welfare, which this case needs (para 9). An immediate and recent change in custody would be good cause for adjudication (para 10), and Article 226 powers are wide (para 11). But the father was not recently deprived of custody: for almost four years he had no role in the child's upbringing, while the maternal home had a complete role (para 12). Long-standing custody issues may not be dealt with in habeas corpus except in extraordinary circumstances (para 13).