Child Custody | Writ Courts Cannot Usurp Civil Court Powers, These Disputes Shouldn’t Be Decided By Habeas Corpus Unless Custody Is Illegally Retained: Orissa High Court

Can a parent use a writ petition to reclaim their child? The Orissa High Court says not unless the custody is clearly illegal. The ruling exposes how complex custody battles must go through proper civil courts, not shortcut litigation.

Child Custody: The Orissa High Court at Cuttack, in a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, dismissed a writ petition filed by a father seeking custody of his five-year-old child who had been living with the child’s maternal aunt and uncle after the mother’s death.

The Court observed that “the welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration” and also clarified that “even though the petitioner is regarded as a natural guardian… it does not confer an absolute right into the custody of child.”

The case began when the father filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court claiming that the maternal relatives had taken the child to Odisha without his permission. According to him, after the death of his wife, he had requested the relatives to stay with him in Chennai to help care for the child. However, they later returned to Odisha with the child.

Before the High Court proceedings, the matter had reached the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Balasore, where directions were issued for the child to be produced before the committee. The issue also reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court directed that the child should be produced before the CWC only for interaction with the father and restrained the committee from deciding the question of custody.

During the hearing before the High Court, the father argued that he is the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and therefore, he has the legal right to the custody of his child. He also relied on Supreme Court rulings, which state that in some situations a writ of habeas corpus can be used to decide custody issues involving a minor child.

The maternal relatives opposed the petition and argued that the child had been living with them since the mother’s death, and they had been taking care of the child. They also pointed out that the custody continued with them based on proceedings before the Child Welfare Committee.

While examining the case, the High Court explained the scope of habeas corpus in custody disputes. The judges stated that this remedy is mainly meant to secure the production of a person when the custody is illegal or unlawful. The Court noted that:

“The writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is primarily an aim to secure the physical production of a person… provided the possession, the custody and the detention is found unlawful and/or illegal.”

The Court emphasized that complex custody issues should not be decided through summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Instead, such matters should be examined properly by civil courts under the relevant laws governing guardianship and custody.

At the same time, the case highlights the difficult position faced by the father, who, after losing his wife, was also separated from his young child. The father argued that, despite being the natural guardian, he has been unable to live with or raise his own child due to the present arrangement.

In this case, the judges noted that the child’s custody with the maternal aunt existed in connection with earlier proceedings before the Child Welfare Committee. Because of this background, the Court held that the custody could not legally be treated as illegal detention.

As a result, the High Court dismissed the father’s writ petition and declined to order immediate custody. However, the Court clarified that the father is free to approach the appropriate civil court under the Guardians and Wards Act or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, where a detailed examination can be conducted and the final decision can be taken in the best interests and welfare of the child.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Legal Provisions Involved

Case Details

• Case Title: Shashikanta Majhi vs State of Odisha and Others
• Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
• Case Number: WPCRL No. 10 of 2026
• Date of Judgment: 23 February 2026
• Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Justice Murahari Sri Raman
• Counsels:
  • For Petitioner: Mr. Jyoti Prakash Patra, Advocate
  • For Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 (State): Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel
  • For Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6: Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

Key Takeaways

• A father being the natural guardian of his child under law should not have to struggle through multiple forums just to be with his own child after losing his wife.
• Separation of a child from the surviving father by extended relatives highlights a serious gap where biological fathers are often forced into long legal battles to assert basic parental rights.
• Habeas corpus relief becomes difficult when custody is shown as “not illegal”, even if the father has been effectively kept away from his own child.
• Child custody disputes often get prolonged because courts direct parties to civil proceedings, which means fathers may spend years fighting to restore their parental role.
• The larger issue remains that the rights of a natural father can easily get diluted by procedural technicalities, even though law recognizes him as the primary guardian.

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.