Habeas corpus is not maintainable to resolve a disputed child-custody claim.

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus directing her husband, the third respondent, to produce their four-year-old child and hand over custody to her.

The parties disputed the circumstances in which the petitioner left Singapore and the child remained with the father.

The father stated that the child had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was receiving treatment and attending preschool in Bengaluru, and that he had filed guardianship proceedings there; he also offered supervised visitation to the petitioner.

The petitioner had previously filed and then withdrawn divorce and interim-custody proceedings before the Family Court, Salem.

The High Court confined its consideration to the preliminary question of maintainability.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In determining maintainability, the Court relied on Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42, and the Madras High Court’s decision in Sangavi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 6505.

The judgment states that Sangavi considered the ratio in Tejaswini Gaud and applies those authorities to the present case; it does not set out their principles in detail.

The Court treated maintainability as the threshold question and declined to examine the parties’ competing allegations about their matrimonial relationship or the child’s circumstances.

Applying the approach in Tejaswini and Sangavi, and having regard to the facts before it—including the father’s position as the child’s natural guardian and the pending guardianship proceedings—the Court held the petition not maintainable.

It did not determine the merits of the competing custody claims.

It clarified that its observations were limited to disposal of the petition and left the parties at liberty to pursue remedies available in law.