Photo used for indicative purpose only
HP High Court Custody Habeas Corpus Rejected: Father told to approach guardian court for Minor’s custody
Shimla, Feb 28,
Reinforcing the legal boundary between extraordinary writ remedies and routine family disputes, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has declined to entertain a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production and custody of his minor daughter, holding that such matters fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Guardian Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi passed the order in Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Cr. WP No. 7 of 2026), decided on February 23, 2026. The petitioner, currently residing in Bangkok, had approached the High Court alleging that his minor daughter had been taken away by her mother and was being kept in Dharamshala. He sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the child’s welfare was at risk and her education had been adversely affected.
(HP High Court Custody Habeas Corpus Rejected) Also read: SC orders release of arrested journalist Prashant Kanojia
The court, however, observed that the essential condition for invoking habeas corpus—illegal detention—was not satisfied in the present case. It noted that the whereabouts of the child were known, and therefore, it could not be argued that she was being unlawfully detained. The Bench underscored that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy intended to secure liberty in cases of illegal confinement and cannot be routinely invoked in disputes over child custody between parents.
Tracing the background, the court took note of the couple’s marriage in 2012 and the birth of their daughter in 2017 in Kangra district. The family had lived in multiple cities, including Chandigarh, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and later Bangkok, where the petitioner continues to reside. The mother had travelled to India with the child in October 2025 and subsequently left Bangkok in December 2025, after which the petitioner claimed to have discovered that the child was residing in Dharamshala.
Relying on its earlier precedent in Saurav Rattan vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the High Court reiterated that when an effective alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. It held that the appropriate course for the petitioner is to approach the competent Guardian Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the child is presently residing. The Bench expressed confidence that such a court would be best equipped to examine issues relating to the child’s welfare and pass appropriate orders with due sensitivity and expedition.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek relief before the appropriate forum. The ruling once again affirms the consistent judicial approach that custody disputes, even when urgent, must be resolved through designated family law mechanisms rather than through writ proceedings.
HP High Court Custody Habeas Corpus Rejected
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
