Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana:Punjab and Haryana High Court

Introduction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently adjudicated upon the case of Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (CRWP-941-2025), delivering a significant ruling on child custody disputes, parental rights, and the writ of habeas corpus. This case serves as a reminder that while emotional factors play a role in custody matters, the law prioritizes the welfare of the child and the rights of legal guardians over all else.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a custody battle over a minor girl, Vanshika @ Vaidehi, who had been in the care of her maternal relatives following her mother’s suicide in 2017. The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar (the father), had been accused and later acquitted of charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and 34 IPC related to his wife’s death. Despite his acquittal in 2019, the petitioner struggled to regain custody of his daughter, who remained with her maternal grandparents and aunts.

Following his acquittal, the petitioner approached the Family Court under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his daughter. The Family Court ruled in his favor on 12.12.2024, directing the private respondents (maternal relatives) to return the child to him. However, the respondents refused to comply, prompting the petitioner to file a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court.

Key Legal Issues

1. Legality of Custody: Whether the continued custody of the minor child by the maternal relatives, despite a Family Court order, constituted illegal detention.
2. Writ of Habeas Corpus in Custody Disputes: The maintainability of a habeas corpus petition for enforcing a custody order granted by a competent civil court.
3. Welfare of the Child: Whether the child’s preference and emotional attachment to her maternal relatives outweighed the petitioner’s legal right to custody as her biological father.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, held the following:

1. Custody as a Fundamental Right of the Natural Guardian: The Court reaffirmed that the petitioner, as the biological father, had the first right to the custody of his minor daughter unless proven unfit. The maternal relatives’ continued retention of the child, despite a judicial order in favor of the father, was deemed unlawful.
2. Habeas Corpus as a Remedy in Custody Disputes: Citing Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors. (2019) and Gohar Begum v. Suggi @ Nazma Begum & Ors. (1960), the Court reiterated that habeas corpus is a valid remedy when a minor is wrongfully deprived of custody by a non-legal guardian.
3. Consideration of Child’s Welfare: The Court conducted an in-camera interaction with the child, noting that she exhibited strong emotional ties with her maternal family and hesitated to recognize her father. However, the Court ruled that the respondents’ influence had unjustly alienated the child from her father, necessitating judicial intervention.
4. Binding Nature of Family Court Orders: The judgment emphasized that once a Family Court has adjudicated custody matters, its orders cannot be disregarded unless reversed by a higher court. The respondents’ refusal to comply with the Family Court’s ruling was unlawful and warranted immediate enforcement.

Final Decision and Directions

• The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the continued custody of the child by the maternal relatives illegal.
• The custody of the minor was handed over to the father in the courtroom.
• The terms set by the Family Court regarding visitation rights for the maternal relatives were upheld.
• The respondents were warned against further non-compliance with judicial orders.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthening the Rights of Natural Guardians

This ruling reinforces the legal principle that a biological parent, especially when legally acquitted of any wrongdoing, should have the primary right to custody unless proven unfit. The decision curtails attempts by non-guardians to deprive a parent of custody based on subjective considerations.

2. Expedited Enforcement of Family Court Orders

By granting a writ of habeas corpus, the Court has ensured that custody decisions made by family courts are not rendered ineffective due to prolonged non-compliance by opposing parties.

3. Balancing Emotional Bonds and Legal Rights

While the child’s preference was considered, the Court ruled that parental rights cannot be overridden merely by emotional attachments, especially when those attachments result from deliberate alienation.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. is a landmark ruling affirming the supremacy of legal guardianship rights over sentimental considerations. It establishes that court orders regarding child custody must be strictly enforced and that habeas corpus remains a viable remedy in cases of wrongful retention of minors. This judgment will serve as a critical precedent for similar custody disputes, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration while also upholding the rights of natural guardians.

References

1. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., CRWP-941-2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court.
2. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
3. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
4. Tejaswini Gaud & Ors. v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors., 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 104.
5. Gohar Begum v. Suggi @ Nazma Begum & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 93.
6. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 936.
7. Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 572.
8. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2022] 4 S.C.R. 784.