In a significant ruling concerning matrimonial and custody litigation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a writ of Habeas Corpus is an "extraordinary remedy" and cannot be routinely used as a shortcut to bypass regular family courts in parental custody battles.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi, dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking the production and custody of his minor daughter. The Court clarified that once the location of the child is known and they are with one of the parents, the case does not fall under "illegal detention," and the parties must approach the competent Guardian Court for relief.

The case, titled Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Ors, involves a complex cross-border family dispute. The petitioner (the father) and Respondent No. 3 (the mother) were married in February 2012. Their daughter, Yashika, was born in July 2017 in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

The family’s journey spanned several global hubs, including Chandigarh, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and eventually Bangkok, Thailand, where the father continues to reside and work. According to the petition, the mother traveled to India with the child in October 2025. While she briefly returned to Bangkok after Diwali, the situation soured shortly thereafter.

The father alleged that in December 2025, while he was away, the mother left their Bangkok residence with the child and all her belongings. After several days of no communication, the father was eventually informed by his father-in-law that the mother and child had reached Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh.

The father approached the High Court with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In legal terms, Habeas Corpus (meaning "produce the body") is a powerful tool used when a person is believed to be under illegal confinement.

The father argued that:

The child was removed from her stable environment in Bangkok without his consent.
The sudden relocation was causing psychological and emotional harm to the minor.
Her education was being disrupted, and he sought her restoration to her previous school to save her academic year.

He contended that the mother’s "unilateral" action of taking the child away from their shared residence in Thailand amounted to illegal detention.

The primary question before the Bench was whether a Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable when the child’s whereabouts are known and the child is with a biological parent.

The Court noted that the petitioner himself had specifically stated in his plea that the child was residing with her mother in Dharamshala. The Bench observed, "Once the specific whereabouts of the minor are known, it cannot be contended that the minor is in unknown or illegal custody for the purpose of a writ of Habeas Corpus."

The Court emphasized that in disputes between parents, the custody of one parent is generally not considered "illegal" in the eyes of the law unless there is a specific court order being violated.

The Bench referred to its earlier decision in Saurav Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2025). In that case, the Court had held that when a child is with one of the parents, the most "efficacious alternative remedy" is to file a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act.

The High Court explained that a Guardian Court is better equipped to handle such matters because:

Evidence: It can take detailed evidence from both sides.
Welfare Check: It can conduct a deeper investigation into the "best interests of the child," which is the paramount consideration in custody cases.
Visitation Rights: It can pass nuanced orders regarding visitation, joint custody, or interim custody.

A key technical point raised by the Court was the territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that a Habeas Corpus plea should ideally be filed in the court within whose territorial limits the person is being "detained." Since the child was in Dharamshala, the petitioner had the right to approach the competent local court there.

The Bench further noted the "trans-national" nature of the case, acknowledging that the father is based in Bangkok while the child is in India. However, it maintained that the legal procedure remains the same.

While dismissing the father's writ petition, the High Court did not leave him without hope. The Bench showed sensitivity to the father’s concerns regarding the child’s education and the sudden relocation from a foreign country.

The Court remarked: "If the petitioner approaches the competent court having jurisdiction over the place where the child is residing, the court would be sensitive to the issue and ensure expeditious consideration."

The Court directed that if the father files a petition before the proper Guardian Court, that court should take up the matter at the earliest to ensure the child’s welfare is not compromised.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the boundaries of High Court interventions in family matters. For litigants, the key takeaways are:

Habeas Corpus is not for Custody Battles: If you know where your child is and they are with the other parent, a Habeas Corpus petition will likely be rejected.
Welfare is Paramount: Even if a parent "removes" a child from a foreign country, Indian courts will prioritize the child’s current welfare and stability over technical jurisdictional claims in summary proceedings.
Correct Forum: The Guardian and Wards Act remains the primary legal framework for deciding who gets to keep the child and how the other parent gets to meet them.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has sent a clear message: while the law is sensitive to the emotions of a left-behind parent, it will not bypass established legal procedures designed to protect the child's best interests.

Case Title: Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Ors
Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi
Date of Order: February 26, 2026