### Habeas Corpus Inappropriate for Custody Disputes Requiring Detailed Inquiry Into Child Welfare and Long-Term Residence

The Petitioners, Jasjit Singh Mangat and his mother, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production of Petitioner No. 1’s minor son from the USA

Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 5 (ex-wife) were US citizens married in 2003. They had a daughter in India (2005) and a son via surrogacy in the USA

On August 16, 2018, Respondent No. 5 left India with both children for the USA without Petitioner No. 1's prior physical consent, though she sent an explanatory email post-departure

Since 2018, the children have resided in California, where the parties subsequently divorced

The Petitioner alleged the son was being "incarcerated" and sought his return to India via the assistance of the Ministry of Home Affairs and CBI

1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable for child custody when the child has been residing with a parent abroad for a significant period (seven years) and involves disputed questions of fact

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies and specialized mediation bodies (NCPCR) are available

The Court applied the principle that a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy, not to be used as a substitute for ordinary custody proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act

It relied on Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019), establishing that habeas corpus is only maintainable if detention is patently illegal and ordinary remedies are ineffective

It further cited Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh (2024), which held that if a detailed inquiry into the child's welfare or preference is required, the writ court must decline jurisdiction in favor of civil courts

The Court also referenced Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the CPCR Act, 2005 regarding the role of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in transnational custody mediation

The Court observed that the minor son had been living with Respondent No. 5—his legal mother on record—in the USA for nearly eight years

Because the son is a US citizen and has been settled there since 2018, determining his "best interest" requires a detailed factual inquiry that cannot be summarily conducted in a writ proceeding

The Court found significant factual disputes regarding whether the mother had informed the father of the move, noting that a habeas corpus petition filed seven years after the event cannot resolve such complexities

Furthermore, the Petitioner had already approached the NCPCR’s Mediation Cell, a specialized body designed to handle transnational parental child abduction cases and create "Parental Plans" through expert involvement (psychologists and legal experts)

The Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, holding that the Petitioner must pursue remedies before the NCPCR and the appropriate Guardianship Court

The petition was disposed of with permission for the Petitioner to continue his pending Criminal Revision Petition (79/2024) and the mediation process before the NCPCR