Summary
The Court declined a father’s direct Article 32 habeas corpus request for custody of his two children, who were living with their mother. A custody proceeding under the Guardians and Wards Act was already pending and provided an effective forum for evidence about the children’s welfare. The mother’s custody was not shown to be illegal, and no exceptional circumstance justified intervention. The custody court was requested to decide the pending case expeditiously, preferably within six months of the specified filing.
Issues
- Whether a direct habeas corpus petition was maintainable when lawful maternal custody was already being challenged through an effective statutory proceeding.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaExtraordinary habeas corpus relief was declined in the absence of illegal custody or exceptional circumstances requiring direct intervention. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Child-custody disputes ordinarily require evidence and the statutory guardianship procedure. Habeas corpus remains available in exceptional cases involving illegal custody or an unavailable or ineffective ordinary remedy; the need for a detailed welfare inquiry may warrant resort to the civil court. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The father’s statutory custody petition was pending, and the mother, a natural guardian, held custody that could not on the admitted facts be treated as illegal. The statutory court could effectively examine welfare, safety and the other questions after receiving evidence. No exceptional circumstance justified direct Article 32 relief. (¶¶ 5, 11, 13)
- Yashita Sahu involved removal of a child from the jurisdiction of a foreign court already considering custody, and was distinguishable. The Court did not decide whether the maintenance ordered in the separate domestic-violence proceedings had been paid. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The custody court was requested to dispose of the pending case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months after a certified copy and application for expedited disposal were filed. (¶ 14)
Result
Writ petition dismissed on maintainability; expedited determination of the pending statutory custody case requested, preferably within six months of the specified filing.