Dismissed¶22

Rohit Kumar Majhi v. State of Odisha

Habeas corpus – custody of minor children

Orissa HC11 Aug 2025WPCRL/76/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCRL No.76 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 11.08.2025 (Harish Tandon, CJ and M.S. Raman, J): habeas corpus writ petition by father for recovery of minor children from maternal grandfather (opposite party No.5) dismissed; parens patriae jurisdiction confined to welfare of children, not parental sentiments; children happy and in school with maternal grandfather per police report; custody not presumed unlawful; petitioner at liberty to seek remedy available in law.

What did the court decide?

The custody of the minor children with opposite party No.5 (their maternal grandfather, with whom they are happy and studying in school) cannot be presumed to be unlawful or illegal or against the wish and will of the children. ¶17

Rohit Kumar Majhi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the father of minor children can obtain their production/recovery from the alleged illegal and wrongful custody of opposite party No.5 through a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Once the Court does not find the children in unlawful detention or wrongfully taken custody, there is no semblance of truth in the habeas corpus writ petition; here the petition was a circuitous route to settle personal scores instead of approaching the proper forum.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

¶17

Key takeaways

A court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction should not go by the sentiments of the parents but must restrict its scrutiny to the welfare of the children.ratio¶19
The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy as available in law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus – custody of minor children – father filed a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus for production/recovery of his minor children from opposite party No.5, their maternal grandfather, who had cared for them since the petitioner's apprehension and incarceration following his wife's suicide (FIR on unnatural death; that matter sub judice). HELD: a court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction should not go by the sentiments of the parents but must restrict its scrutiny to the welfare of the children; the police report showed the children happy while residing with the maternal grandfather and studying in school; their custody could not be presumed unlawful or illegal or against the wish and will of the children; finding no unlawful detention or wrongful custody, the Court held there was no semblance of truth in the petition, which was a circuitous route to settle personal scores instead of approaching the proper forum. Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy as available in law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPCRL No.76 of 2025

¶3

Rohit Kumar Majhi …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

¶4

…. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. D. Tripathy, A.G.A.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

11.08.2025

1 . The instant writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is taken

¶12

out by the father of the minor children for their production/recovery from the illegal and wrongful custody of opposite party No.5.

¶13

Admittedly, opposite party No.5 is the father-in-law of the petitioner and is having the custody of those children from the day when the petitioner was apprehended and was under incarceration.

¶14

The record reveals that the wife of the petitioner committed

¶15

suicide and the FIR was lodged on unnatural death and the petitioner was taken into custody leaving those minor children without any care

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

and protection. Opposite party No.5 took those children and is discharging the duties as a maternal grandfather. The report submitted by the Police also indicates that the children are happy while residing with the maternal grandfather and they are also studying in school. It cannot be presumed that the custody of the children is unlawful or illegal and/or against the wish and will of the children.

¶18

The Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction should not go

¶19

by the sentiments of the parents, but must restrict its scrutiny on the welfare of the children. Serious allegation has been made against the petitioner in relation to an unnatural death of his wife and the matter is still subjudice.

¶20

Since the purpose of the habeas corpus is the production of the body before the Court, the petitioner is in effects intended to settle his personal scores taking a circuitous route of filing the writ in the nature of habeas corpus instead of approaching the proper forum. The moment the Court does not find that the children in unlawful detention or have been wrongfully taken custody thereof, we do not think that there is any semblance of truth in the instant writ petition.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22