Not For Writ Court To Deal With Habeas Corpus Issue In Husband-Wife Dispute: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The petitioner, a father, had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for producing his minor daughter before the Court.
Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice Bipin C. Negi, Himachal Pradesh HC
While dismissing a father’s petition seeking issuance of a Habeas Corpus writ for producing his minor daughter, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that it is not for the Writ Court to deal with the issue of Habeas Corpus, once the dispute is between husband and wife.
The petitioner, a father, had approached the High Court, seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for producing his minor daughter before the Court, on the ground that the respondent mother had taken the child away. The petitioner also sought a direction for the restoration and uninterrupted continuation of the minor child’s education at her previous school, thereby safeguarding her academic year.
Referring to the judgment in Saurav Rattan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2023), The Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi stated, “...in such circumstances, in Saurav Rattan’s case, (supra), this Court came to the conclusion that it would be the Guardian Court as such, which would go into the issue regarding the custody on the basis of the evidence as such and it would not be for the Writ Court as such to deal with the issue of Habeas Corpus, once the dispute is between husband and wife.”
Advocate Aashutosh Srivastava represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Rakesh Dhaulta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the petitioner (father) and the third respondent (mother) was solemnised in the year 2012, and from their wedlock, a girl child was born. The father and mother resided at different places, including Chandigarh, Mumbai, Banglore and then eventually, moved to Bangkok, Thailand, wherein the petitioner continued to reside. The mother had travelled to India alongwith the minor child, and after her return, she was hospitalised. From the pleadings, the petitioner was stated to have returned to his Bangkok residence, where he discovered that all the child’s belongings had been removed from the house. It was also averred that repeated efforts were made to resolve the matter, but the respondent mother changed her contact number and failed to respond to the proposals for counselling.
It was brought to the Court’s notice that the petitioner’s father had managed to speak with the father of the woman who had stated that she had reached Dharamshala, and he would speak to her and revert. After this communication, her father did not respond. The petition thus came to be preferred in such circumstances.
Reasoning
The Bench reaffirmed that it would not be for the Writ Court to deal with the issue of Habeas Corpus, once the dispute is between husband and wife.
Considering the facts that the child was relocated from a foreign country, the father is abroad and the petition has also been filed wherein the affidavit has been attested at Pune, the Bench held that if such a petition is preferred before a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court will be sensitive to the said issue and would ensure that the matter is taken up at the earliest.
Thus, considering the settled position of law, the Bench dismissed the petition. “However, a liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court for appropriate relief”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:4020)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Aashutosh Srivastava, Vishwajeet Singh
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Rakesh Dhaulta