Synopsis

The petitioner (mother) filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking restoration of custody of her minor daughter (aged 4, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder) from the respondent (father), alleging that the father had unilaterally removed and abducted the child to an undisclosed location in Singapore. The father had already initiated divorce proceedings in Singapore, and the Singapore Family Justice Courts had dismissed the mother's applications for stay and for relocation of the child to India, holding that Singapore was the more appropriate forum and that the child's best interests required her to remain in Singapore. The mother concealed these Singapore court orders while filing the habeas corpus petition in Delhi. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: (i) habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and not appropriate where disputed questions of fact exist and an alternative efficacious remedy (Guardians and Wards Act) is available; (ii) concealment of material facts is a sufficient ground to decline discretionary jurisdiction; (iii) the welfare of the child, especially one with special needs, requires detailed inquiry not possible in summary habeas corpus proceedings.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Writ petition (criminal) no. 4294 of 2025

Somya goel (petitioner) vs. The state (govt. of nct of delhi) & anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon'ble mr. justice navin chawla and hon'ble mr. justice ravinder dudeja

Core Law: Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody matters – Jurisdiction of Family Courts vs. High Court – Principle of comity of courts – Concealment of material facts.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja (Division Bench)
Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026 (Reserved on May 13, 2026)
Case No.: W.P.(Crl) No. 4294 of 2025
Citation: 2026:DHC:5093-DB

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts)

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 (habeas corpus)

• Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 6(a) (custody of child below five years ordinarily with mother)

• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Sections 7, 8, 25 (custody and guardianship proceedings)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 (inherent powers), Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 (injunction)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in a child custody dispute where the child is in a foreign country (Singapore), proceedings are pending before foreign courts which have already adjudicated on jurisdiction and the child's welfare, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, and there are serious disputed questions of fact requiring a detailed inquiry.

Key legal principles applied:

<li style="text-align: justify"

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.