The Delhi High Court dismissed a Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus filed by a mother seeking custody of her four-year-old daughter suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), observing that the deliberate concealment of vital foreign court proceedings and orders was a sufficient independent ground to deny remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It was observed that a writ court operates in a summary jurisdiction where rights are evaluated strictly on competing affidavits, making it an inappropriate forum to resolve intricate, heavily disputed questions of fact regarding financial conduct, parental fitness, and long-term child welfare.

Emphasizing the principles of the comity of courts and the paramount interest of the minor, the Court noted that the child was receiving structured institutional therapy abroad, where she had spent most of her life. 

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, "Whether the petitioner wilfully submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court at Singapore or she did so under protest, one thing remains and cannot be disputed, is that she has to truthfully disclose these proceedings in the Writ Petition if she is to invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Concealment alone is a sufficient ground to dismiss the present Writ Petition and for refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appeared for the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner (mother) and the respondent no. 2 (father) solemnized their marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and a minor daughter was subsequently born to them, who holds Indian citizenship. Following their marriage, the parties established their matrimonial home abroad. However, matrimonial disputes arose, leading to allegations by the petitioner of continuous cruelty, neglect, and emotional harassment by the respondent no. 2 and his family towards her and the minor child.

The minor child was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), necessitating specialized daily therapies. The petitioner alleged that the respondent no. 2 provided minimal financial support for the treatment, subjected her to verbal and emotional abuse, and coerced her into resigning from her employment.

It was further alleged by the petitioner that she was deceitfully persuaded to return to the matrimonial home abroad under the pretext of reconciliation and advanced medical care for the child. Upon arrival, the respondent no. 2 allegedly escalated his abusive behavior, confiscated her travel documents and jewelry, and subjected her to physical and confinement-related violence. Fearing for her safety, the petitioner sought police assistance abroad and returned to India. However, she was unable to bring the minor child back as the child's travel documents were allegedly withheld by the respondent no. 2 under threats of abduction charges.

The petitioner subsequently obtained a restraint order against the respondent no. 2 from a foreign court. She further alleged that the respondent no. 2 unilaterally removed the minor child to an undisclosed location, terminated the petitioner’s residency status abroad, and actively alienated the child, which adversely affected the minor's health. Consequently, the petitioner moved the High Court by way of the present Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that the marriage was solemnized under Hindu rites in India, and the minor child, being of tender age and a citizen of India, was legally entitled to the care and custody of her mother as the primary caregiver. It was submitted that the foreign courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter since the minor child had spent a crucial period of her early life in India, where she was undergoing structured therapy, thereby establishing intimate contact and habitual residence in India.

It was further contended that a Writ of Habeas Corpus was fully maintainable to restore the custody of a child unlawfully withheld, even during the pendency of alternative guardianship proceedings before a Family Court.

Contentions of the Respondent No. 2

Respondent no. 2 contended that a Writ of Habeas Corpus was completely misplaced as the custody of a minor child with her natural father could not be termed illegal or unauthorized. It was argued that the petitioner was guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, including orders rejecting her relocation application and granting personal protection to the respondent no. 2 and the child.

Lastly, the respondent no. 2 argued that since the petitioner had already invoked alternative and efficacious statutory remedies by filing a Divorce Petition and a Guardianship Petition before the competent Family Courts in India, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the petitioner had deliberately concealed material developments and judicial orders passed by the foreign court prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It was held that such non-disclosure of vital facts alone constituted a sufficient and independent ground to dismiss the petition and deny the exercise of the court's extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It was noted by the Court that the minor child was born abroad and had primarily resided there, except for a brief temporary stay in India. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had voluntarily left the child in the custody of the father when returning to India and had approached the High Court with a significant delay of nearly one year, during which time multiple contested proceedings had already unfolded before the foreign matrimonial court.

"The welfare of the child has to be determined keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, and the Court cannot take a pedantic approach", the Court observed.

The Court took into consideration the persuasive value of the foreign court’s order, which had rejected the petitioner’s applications for a stay of proceedings and relocation of the child. The foreign court had found that the minor child's specialized educational and therapeutic treatments for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and ADHD were deeply rooted in that country, making it in the child's best interest to maintain stability and the status quo rather than disrupting her environment through relocation.

"Though the above order may not be binding on this Court, it would have a persuasive effect keeping in mind the comity of Courts. Most importantly, and as noted hereinabove, the petitioner intentionally concealed this order from this Court while filing the present Writ Petition", the Court said.

Adverting to the settled legal position on the maintainability of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in custody matters, the Court placed reliance on the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. It observed that a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy meant to secure immediate release from illegal or improper detention, and it should not be routinely issued when an effective statutory remedy is available under special legislations like the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act.

The Court emphasized that a writ court operates in a summary jurisdiction where rights are evaluated strictly on the strength of competing affidavits. In cases involving intricate, highly contested, and disputed questions of fact—such as allegations regarding the financial conduct of the parties, the health conditions of the parents, and counter-claims of neglect—a detailed and thorough inquiry is indispensable, which can only be properly conducted by a civil court through a regular trial.

It was further observed that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and that in all child custody disputes, the court cannot adopt a pedantic or purely statutory approach but must be guided solely by the paramount welfare and best interest of the minor child.

Consequently, the High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition.

The Court relegated the petitioner to agitate her claims for permanent custody, interim custody, and visitation rights before the competent Family Court, where parallel guardianship and divorce proceedings were already pending, clarifying that its observations were confined solely to the maintainability of the writ and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the case on its merits.

Cause Title: Somya Goel v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5093-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, Advocate Aadarsh Kothari, Advocate Spriha Jha

Respondents: Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lao, Advocate Abhinav Kumar, Advocate Aryan Sachdeva, Advocate Priyam Aggarwal, Advocate Vinit Trehan, Advocate Yash Srivastava, Advocate Rashi Agarwal, Advocate Param Jeet Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: