Court restores toddler’s custody to pregnant mother, calls separation ‘grave cruelty’

5 min readNew DelhiJul 17, 2026 03:00 PM IST

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the woman allegedly had a love marriage and her husband is now working in Dubai (AI-generated image)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed a woman’s husband and in-laws to hand over the custody of her three-year-old son, observing that the welfare of a child of such tender age is ordinarily best served in the care of the mother and that depriving a pregnant woman of the custody of her firstborn would amount to “grave cruelty”.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing a plea of a woman who sought direction to her husband and his family to hand over custody of her son in the interest of the well-being of the child.

“In fact, it would be grave cruelty to the mother in case at this stage of her life when she is pregnant once again, her firstborn is taken away from her, who himself is only of the age of about three years old. The father, the grandmother, uncles and aunts of a child cannot take care of him the way the mother can, as is sought to be urged,” the July 13 order read.

A love marriage, child custody battle

The woman claimed that she had a love marriage with her estranged husband in August, 2021. Later, she filed a petition before the trial court seeking protection of their life and liberty from their respective parents. Subsequently, the couple had a son who was born in May 2023.

Immediately after the marriage, the woman claimed that close relatives of her husband started harassing her for dowry, while her husband was addicted to drugs and went abroad in December 2025 for work.

She further added that the situation got even worse, and finally, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in March 2026 along with her minor son. However, she added that her husband allegedly called her up from Dubai and threatened to get her father and brother killed, and because of these threats, she, along with her minor son, went back to the matrimonial home after four days.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi clarified that the woman should grant access to the child’s father, considering the welfare of the child.

Once again, the woman claimed that his husband’s close relative threatened her and coerced her to leave their house but kept the child with them forcibly. On returning to her matrimonial home, the petitioner immediately informed the police, and later in April 2026, the petitioner dialled the women’s helpline number 181.

Story continues below this ad

Despite making all efforts, the woman added that no action has been taken to return her child to her, and it would be in his best interest if his custody were handed over to her, as his mother. The petitioner was represented by advocate Arun Abrol, who submitted that

‘Handover child to mother’

The high court noted that the plea filed by the husband has nothing which suggests that the woman is unsuitable in any way to take care of the child, other than stating that, as she is pregnant with another child and financially dependent, she would be unable to take care of her son.

Accordingly, the court directed that the custody of the minor child should be handed over to the woman. The police officials concerned were also directed to ensure the same and file an affidavit regarding compliance with this order within a period of one week of the handing over of the custody of the child to the petitioner.

The court, however, clarified that the woman should grant access to the child’s father, considering their convenience and the welfare of the child.

Story continues below this ad

‘Woman is pregnant, can’t take care of son’

On the contrary, the husband and his family, represented by advocate Ritesh Pandey, submitted that the woman left the matrimonial home after leaving her son there in January 2026 when the husband of the petitioner went abroad.

It was added that the husband’s family got the child enrolled in a good school and is taking adequate care of him.

It was further stated that the mother of the petitioner has died, and there is no female member in the family to look after the son, particularly when the petitioner is pregnant and would be unable to look after the son herself.

It was also argued that this Habeas Corpus (that you have the body) plea should be dismissed as it is not maintainable against the father, and the remedy available to the petitioner would be to file a petition under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

Punjab and Haryana High Court