The Tripura High Court ruled that child custody cases cannot be decided only on strict legal rules. The Court stressed that the child’s welfare is the highest priority and ordered that custody be given back to the biological mother.
AGARTALA: In an judgment on child custody, the Tripura High Court stated that disputes relating to minor children cannot be decided only by reading legal provisions in a mechanical or technical way. The Court underlined that such cases involve deep human emotions, parental bonds, and the future of a child. Therefore, a sensitive and practical approach must be adopted, keeping the welfare and well-being of the child as the most important factor.
A Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha made strong observations while deciding the matter.
The Bench stated:
“Such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem and is required to be solved with human touch………. The child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro. It is only the child’s welfare which is the focal point for consideration.”
The case arose after the minor child was taken to Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, for medical treatment. Later, the hospital authorities raised allegations of abuse and even questioned the biological motherhood of the petitioner. The child was then placed under the care of Hope House, Vellore. The mother approached the High Court, alleging illegal detention of her daughter and seeking custody.
During the proceedings, a DNA test was conducted. The forensic report confirmed that the petitioner is the biological mother of the child with an extremely high probability. This finding removed any doubt about maternity.
The Court examined whether the child’s custody by the care institution was lawful. It emphasized that in child custody matters, the welfare of the child is the most important consideration. The judges observed that technical objections should not defeat substantive justice, especially in cases involving a minor child and a widowed mother.
The Court strongly stated,
“The Mother and child love and affection is more relevant than anything else.”
It further clarified the spirit of constitutional justice by observing, “The laws are made for the citizens, but citizens are not born for the laws.” These observations underline that legal procedures cannot override natural bonds and fundamental parental rights.
On the issue of custody, the Court reiterated a settled legal position and held, “Once that fact is ascertained, it can be presumed that the custody of the minor with her mother is lawful.” This became a central principle in the judgment.
The Bench further explained the scope of habeas corpus in child custody matters. Quoting the Supreme Court’s view, the judgment records, “Habeas corpus proceedings are not to justify or examine the legality of the custody.” It also clarified:
“Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued.”
The Court also relied on another Supreme Court precedent and noted, “The present appeal emanates from a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production and custody of a minor child.” It further highlighted:
“The principal duty of the court is to ascertain whether the custody of child is unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person.”
Importantly, the High Court found that the shifting of the child from the hospital to the care institution was done without obtaining judicial permission while the matter was pending before it. The Bench categorically held that such action was “unauthorized, arbitrary and Ultra vires.”
The Court also made it clear that retaining custody without proper authority constitutes illegal detention. It warned that failure to comply with its direction would invite serious consequences and may be treated as willful disobedience of court orders.
This judgment sends a strong message that institutions cannot override the legal rights of biological parents without proper statutory backing and judicial scrutiny. In many cases, allegations alone are used to separate children from parents for prolonged periods. This ruling reinforces that custody must always rest on lawful authority and the child’s welfare, not on administrative decisions or unilateral actions.
Finally, the High Court allowed the petition and directed Hope House to hand over custody of the minor child to her mother on or before 15.02.2026, with police assistance if necessary. The State authorities were also directed to ensure the child’s physical and mental well-being after her return.
This case stands as a reminder that when it comes to child custody, courts act as guardian of justice. Institutional overreach cannot override a parent’s natural rights, and the welfare of the child remains the highest law.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Provision & Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Constitution of India – Article 226 | Empowers High Court to issue writs | Used to file habeas corpus for child custody |
| Writ of Habeas Corpus | Protects against illegal detention | Court examined unlawful custody of minor |
| POCSO Act, 2012 – Section 4 | Punishes aggravated sexual assault | Allegations noted, but custody decided independently |
| Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 6 | Defines natural guardian of minor | Mother held as lawful natural guardian |
| Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42 | Scope of habeas corpus in child custody | Custody with non-guardian can be challenged |
| Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand Dinshaw (1987) 1 SCC 42 | Child welfare is paramount | Welfare prioritized over technical custody |
| Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 8 SCC 454 | Test for changing child custody | Illegal custody and welfare examined |
| Sayed Saleemuddin v. Rukhsana (2001) 5 SCC 247 | Court’s duty in child habeas corpus | Focus on welfare and legality of custody |
| Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 329 | Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 | Tripura HC held petition maintainable |
| Parens Patriae Jurisdiction | Court acts as guardian of child | Court intervened to protect child’s rights |
Case Details
- Case Title: Smti. Prabha Rani Das vs. The State of Tripura & Others
- Case Number: WP(C) (HC) No. 14 of 2022
- Court: High Court of Tripura, Agartala
- Date of Judgment: 04.02.2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud & Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Biswas, Senior Advocate, Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate, Mr. R. Nath, Advocate, and Mr. P. Biswas, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Advocate General, Mr. R. Datta, Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate, and Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Courts have confirmed that child custody cannot be decided only on technical legal provisions, yet in reality many fathers still lose access to their children due to procedural bias.
- The High Court clearly said a child is not a “ball” to be passed around — but in many custody battles, men are treated as secondary parents with limited rights.
- Welfare of the child is the top priority, which naturally includes the emotional and psychological role of a father in a child’s life.
- Habeas corpus is maintainable when a child is kept without lawful authority — a crucial safeguard for fathers who are often denied access without proper legal basis.
- This judgment reinforces that custody matters require fairness and human sensitivity, not gender-based assumptions that silently sideline men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.