The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly declined to suspend a father's court-mandated visitation rights in a bitter custody dispute, underscoring that such complex matters must be resolved by a family court after a detailed inquiry. The ruling was delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, dismissing a writ petition filed by a divorced woman and her minor son.
Court Upholds Primacy of Child's Welfare
In his judgment, Justice Goel reaffirmed that the welfare and best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in all custody-related matters. However, he clarified that determining this welfare is not a summary exercise. It requires a comprehensive, evidence-based process involving interaction with the child and potentially expert testimony, which falls outside the limited scope of writ jurisdiction.
The court explicitly stated that a "writ of Habeas Corpus is not a substitute" for the thorough procedures available under guardianship laws. It referenced its own earlier decision in Veerpal Kaur v State of Punjab (2025) to emphasise that writ courts should show restraint and direct parties to statutory forums, unless exceptional circumstances demand urgent intervention.
The Dispute: Allegations and Counter-Allegations
The petition was filed by a woman and her 14-year-old son. The parents had divorced by mutual consent through a Pune civil court decree in 2018, which granted the mother permanent custody while stipulating the father's visitation rights.
The mother alleged that the father had misused these visitation rights, harassing the child during a visit in July 2023 and causing severe mental trauma that made the boy fearful. She further accused him of manhandling her elderly mother and attempting to forcibly take the child at a Panchkula bus stop on August 9, 2023.
Despite complaints to the Panchkula police in August 2023, no First Information Report (FIR) was registered. This led the petitioners to seek protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution through the high court.
The father denied all allegations, labelling them as exaggerated and a tactic to alienate the child from him. A police status report from February 2024 supported this, finding no evidence of harassment. It stated the August incident was a tussle over handing over the child as per the court order and advised the parties to seek redress in civil court.
High Court's Rationale and Final Directions
Justice Goel noted that the petition raised disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. Granting the mother's plea to restrain the father would effectively modify the 2018 Pune decree, something the high court cannot do in its writ jurisdiction, especially as it is not the supervisory court over the Pune judgment.
"Entertaining prayers which seek alteration, suspension or modification of the visitation condition(s) would amount to sitting in appeal over the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court at Pune," the judgment stated.
Regarding the allegation of police inaction, the court held that the petitioners must first exhaust statutory remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code to compel FIR registration. It found no material indicating an imminent threat warranting extraordinary writ relief.
While dismissing the petition, the court clarified that the mother is free to seek modification of visitation rights or other remedies before the appropriate family court or under criminal law. It added that observations in this judgment are confined to the writ petition and will not prejudice other proceedings. The court also acknowledged that interim orders passed earlier had already safeguarded the petitioners' safety during the case's pendency.
