Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Others, 2026

The Court reinforced the principle that custody matters require detailed evidence, which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.

Himachal Pradesh High Court·27 February 2026
Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Others, 2026
Constitution of India
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date of Decision

27 February 2026

Judges

Justice G. S. Sandhawalia & Justice Bipin C. Negi

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner is the father of a minor daughter, Ms. Yashika.

  • The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25.02.2012 and registered on 13.09.2021.

  • The minor child was born on 06.07.2017 in District Kangra near Dharamshala.

  • The family resided at different places including Chandigarh, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Bangkok, Thailand, where the petitioner continues to reside.

  • The mother travelled to India with the minor child on 10.10.2025 and returned to Bangkok after Diwali.

  • She was hospitalised from 25.11.2025 to 26.11.2025, after which her brother came to Bangkok.

  • The petitioner alleged that the mother left Bangkok on 13.12.2025 and removed the child’s belongings from their residence.

  • He claimed that despite repeated attempts and a family conference call, he did not receive cooperation from her.

  • He was later informed by the respondent’s father that the mother and child had reached Dharamshala.

  • The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking production and custody of the minor child and restoration of her education in the previous school.

  • The Vacation Judge directed the petitioner to justify the maintainability of the writ petition.

Issues

  1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in a custody dispute between parents?

  2. Whether the father can seek custody of a minor child through habeas corpus when the child’s whereabouts are known?

  3. Whether the appropriate remedy in such custody disputes lies before the Guardian Court?

Held

  • A custody dispute between parents cannot ordinarily be decided through habeas corpus.

  • The petitioner must approach the competent Guardian Court for custody of the minor.

  • The writ petition was dismissed.

Analysis

  • The Court reinforced the principle that custody matters require detailed evidence, which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.

  • It maintained the distinction between illegal detention and parental custody disputes.

  • By directing the petitioner to the Guardian Court, the Court ensured that the issue of child welfare would be decided comprehensively.

  • The judgment prevents misuse of habeas corpus in private family disputes.

  • It promotes jurisdictional discipline by requiring parties to approach the court within whose territorial limits the child resides.