Raj HC dismisses habeas corpus plea by biological parents, cites child’s welfare and adoption dispute

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the biological parents of a four-year-old boy seeking his custody from relatives with whom the child had been voluntarily left, holding that such custody cannot be termed illegal detention and that the disputed validity of the child’s adoption must be decided by a civil court, not in writ proceedings.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal was hearing the petition filed by the parents seeking custody of their minor son from the petitioner’s sister and her husband, an IPS officer of the Rajasthan cadre, with whom the child had been left for what the parents claimed was a temporary arrangement.

According to the petitioners, the fourth respondent, sister of petitioner No. 2, was undergoing IVF treatment and had been advised by psychologists that the companionship of a minor child would be beneficial during the course of the treatment. The petitioners accordingly left their son temporarily in the care of the fourth and fifth respondents. When they later sought the return of the child, the respondents refused to hand him over.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that custody had been given for only twenty days and was thereafter unlawfully retained, and that the petitioners, being the natural guardians of the minor under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, were entitled to his custody, particularly since the child was below five years of age. The adoption claimed by the respondents, it was submitted, was false and baseless, unsupported by any document or ceremony, and counsel pointed to what was called an inherent contradiction in the respondents’ case — the adoption ceremony was claimed to have taken place in May 2025, while the respondents’ own case was that the child began residing with them only in December 2025. Counsel relied on a line of decisions on custody and natural guardianship, including Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi and Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma.

Counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents countered that they were childless and that the petitioners had voluntarily given the child in adoption, with a ceremony performed on May 8, 2025 at Agra in the petitioners’ presence, satisfying Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It was submitted that the child, now studying in UKG at a reputed school in Jaipur, had settled into his present environment, and that the fifth respondent, an IPS officer, was well placed to provide for his care and education. Counsel submitted that the custody could not be termed illegal, that the welfare of the child was paramount, and that the validity of the adoption, being a disputed question of fact, could only be decided in civil proceedings and not in a habeas corpus petition.

Having heard both sides, the Court held:

“Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the present habeas corpus petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons: firstly, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the Court is required to examine whether the custody of the minor amounts to illegal detention. In the present case, it is not disputed that the biological parents themselves voluntarily entrusted the custody of the child to the respondents No.4 & 5, therefore, at this stage, such custody cannot be termed as illegal detention; secondly, according to the respondents No. 4 & 5, the child was given in adoption on 08.05.2025 and pursuant thereto, he has been admitted to [a reputed school in Jaipur], where he is presently studying in UKG and the child is now settled in his present environment and is receiving education in a reputed institution. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the view that, at present, the welfare of the child would be best served by permitting him to continue residing with the respondents No.4 & 5; thirdly, the dispute regarding the legality and validity of the alleged adoption involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding, such issues require leading of oral and documentary evidence and can only be decided in appropriate proceedings before the competent court, where both the parties are at liberty to lead their evidence.”

The Court accordingly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, while observing that if either the petitioners or the fourth and fifth respondents initiate appropriate proceedings regarding the validity of the alleged adoption, the concerned court shall make every endeavour to decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

Title: X & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:24385-DB

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Kapil Gupta with Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Mr. Chitransh Saxena, Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Ms. Bhumika Sharma and Ms. Sonakshi Soni

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG, assisted by Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Additional Government Advocate, with Ms. Neha Goyal; Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Aaryan Pareek