Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Maintainability of Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Disputes
The court emphasizes the paramount welfare of the child and the limitations of foreign court orders in custody matters.
In a landmark decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the maintainability of a writ of Habeas Corpus in cases involving the custody of minor children. The division bench, comprising Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, emphasized that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, overriding any foreign court orders.
The case, titled Saurabh Malpani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, revolved around the custody of a minor child, Miraya, who was allegedly wrongfully removed from Canada by her mother. The petitioner, Saurabh Malpani, sought the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to regain custody of his daughter and return her to Canada, as per the order of a Canadian court.
Despite objections from the respondents citing a previous judgment by the Gwalior bench, the court held that the writ of Habeas Corpus is indeed maintainable in child custody matters. The judgment clarified that while foreign court orders can be considered, they do not dictate the outcome; rather, the child's welfare is the pivotal factor in such cases.
The court referenced several precedents, including Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Kanika Goel v. State (NCT of Delhi), underscoring that the child's welfare supersedes legal rights and foreign judgments. It was noted that the extraordinary remedy of Habeas Corpus can be invoked in exceptional circumstances where ordinary legal remedies are ineffective or unavailable.
The bench highlighted that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot merely serve as an enforcement tool for foreign court orders. Instead, it serves to evaluate the legality of the child's current custody and whether it aligns with the child's best interests. The decision stresses that the Indian courts hold the jurisdiction to assess the welfare of the child independently of foreign rulings.
The judgment also addressed concerns about the prior ruling by the Gwalior bench, clarifying that the maintainability of Habeas Corpus was not explicitly decided in that case. Thus, the court dismissed objections to the writ's applicability in minor custody disputes.
This ruling is a significant step in child custody jurisprudence, reaffirming the court's role in safeguarding the welfare of minors and ensuring their best interests are prioritized above international legal technicalities.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on October 10, 2025, as the court continues to deliberate on the merits of the petition.
Bottom Line:
Writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in the matter of custody of a minor child if the detention of the child is illegal and without authority of law, and the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the child.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Hague Convention of 1980 on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Sections 44A, 13, and 14 of the CPC, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
