Dismissed

Gayathri Devi v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2026HCP/319/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother filed habeas corpus seeking child custody of minor son from third respondent. High Court held custody disputes require civil adjudication of welfare and evidence. Court dismissed petition as habeas corpus not maintainable; directed petitioner to approach civil court under guardianship acts.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed. The petitioner is directed to work out her remedy before the competent civil forum.

Gayathri Devi Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

H.C.P.No.319 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

H.C.P.No. 319 of 2026

¶9

Gayathri Devi W/o.Kavinesh

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, No.76, E.V.K.Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station – G3, Sastri Nagar, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 084.

¶14

Kavinesh

¶15

Malarkodi

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing respondents 1 and 2 herein to produce the petitioner's minor child viz., Praneeth, 3 years 5 months i.e., the son of the petitioner before this Court and handover to the petitioner.

¶18

__________ Page1 of 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

H.C.P.No.319 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.D.Kamachi For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Karthikeyan for R1 and R2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

¶24

This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner’s minor son, namely Praneeth, aged about 3 years 5 months before this Court and to handover his custody to the petitioner.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that she is the biological mother of the minor child Praneeth, born out of a lawful wedlock with the third respondent. Owing to disputes arising out of the marital relationship, the petitioner and the third respondent are living separately. It is alleged that the third respondent forcibly took the minor child from the lawful custody of the petitioner and has been illegally detaining the child till date, besides preventing the petitioner to meet the child. Though a complaint has been lodged before the respondentsPolice, no effective action has been taken. Hence, the present petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

H.C.P.No.319 of 2026

¶30

It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the third respondent are the biological parents and natural guardians of the minor child, Praneeth, aged about 3 years 5 months. The grievance projected in the present petition relates to custody of the minor child arising out of matrimonial disputes between the parties.

¶31

It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus in matters of child custody is maintainable only where the detention is proved to be illegal or without authority of law. When the minor child is in the custody of one of the natural guardians, such custody cannot ordinarily be termed as illegal. In such circumstances, adjudication of custody rights necessarily involves appreciation of evidence and determination of the paramount welfare of the child, which cannot be undertaken in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief.

¶32

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to

¶33

Page3 of 5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

H.C.P.No.319 of 2026

¶36

the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent forum, in the

¶37

manner known to law.

¶38

(P.V.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 18.02.2026