In Somya Goel v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P.(CRL.) 4294/2025, decided on 10 June 2026, the Delhi High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for restoration of custody of a minor child. The case arose from a complex cross-border child custody dispute between parents residing in different jurisdictions, namely India and Singapore. It involved parallel proceedings before the Family Justice Courts of Singapore and courts in India.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that where a custody dispute involves disputed questions of fact, competing allegations between parents, foreign court proceedings, and detailed inquiries concerning the welfare of the child, such issues should ordinarily be decided by a Family Court rather than through summary proceedings in a habeas corpus petition. The Court further emphasised that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration in custody disputes and that suppression of material facts can itself be a sufficient ground for refusing discretionary relief.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner-mother and respondent-father married in 2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. After marriage, the couple settled in Singapore, where they established their matrimonial home. Their daughter was born in Singapore in September 2021, though she continued to hold Indian citizenship.
According to the mother, the relationship deteriorated after the birth of the child. She alleged that the father and his family subjected both her and the child to emotional harassment, neglect, and cruelty. The petitioner claimed that the father displayed irresponsible behaviour towards the child’s upbringing and medical needs and provided inadequate support for the child’s care.
The dispute assumed greater significance when the child was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in March 2024. The mother asserted that she became the primary caregiver and undertook extensive efforts to secure specialised treatment and therapy for the child. She further alleged that the father failed to adequately support the child’s treatment and continued to subject her to emotional abuse.
The petitioner also accused the father of being abusive, controlling, and violent. She alleged that after she returned to Singapore with the child in December 2024 in the hope of reconciliation, the father confiscated her passport and the child’s travel documents, attempted to compel her to sign divorce papers, and subjected her to physical and emotional abuse.
Eventually, fearing for her safety, she left Singapore and returned to India in December 2024 without the child. Thereafter, multiple legal proceedings commenced in both Singapore and India.
Proceedings Before Singapore Courts
A critical aspect of the case was the extensive litigation that had already taken place before the Family Justice Courts of Singapore.
The father initiated divorce proceedings in Singapore in January 2025. Subsequently, both parties filed several applications, affidavits, and responses before the Singapore courts concerning jurisdiction, custody, relocation of the child, and related issues.
The mother challenged the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts and sought relocation of the child to India. However, the Singapore Family Justice Court rejected both requests by an order dated 25 November 2025. The Singapore court observed that although the parties were Indian citizens and had married in India, they had resided primarily in Singapore for more than a decade. It further noted that the child had been born in Singapore and that her education and specialised treatment for autism and ADHD were linked to Singapore.
The Singapore court concluded that Singapore was the more appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute and that the child’s welfare would be best served by maintaining stability and continuity in her existing environment. The court also observed that the child was receiving regular medical care, therapy, and educational support in Singapore and that disruption of these arrangements could adversely affect her development.
Petition Before the Delhi High Court
Despite the proceedings in Singapore, the mother approached the Delhi High Court through a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. She sought directions requiring the father to produce the minor child and restore custody to her.
The mother contended that the child had effectively been removed from her lawful custody and that the father’s conduct amounted to unlawful detention. She argued that the child required maternal care, particularly because of her special needs arising from ASD.
The petitioner further relied on judicial precedents emphasising that young children, especially daughters of tender age, ordinarily benefit from maternal care. She argued that the welfare of the child required her return to India and restoration to the mother’s custody.
She also relied upon international principles governing child abduction and relocation disputes, including jurisprudence concerning the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to argue that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction most closely connected with her welfare.
Father’s Objections
The father strongly opposed the petition. He argued that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in custody matters only where the custody is illegal or entirely without authority of law. Since the child was residing with her biological father, he contended that such custody could not be characterised as unlawful detention.
The father further submitted that the petitioner had concealed crucial facts from the High Court, particularly the extensive proceedings before Singapore courts and the orders passed therein. According to him, the deliberate suppression of these proceedings disentitled the petitioner from invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court.
He also pointed out that the petitioner had already initiated guardianship proceedings and divorce proceedings before Indian courts, thereby demonstrating the availability of alternative statutory remedies.
Concealment of Material Facts
One of the principal reasons for the dismissal of the petition was the Court’s finding that the petitioner had failed to disclose important proceedings pending before the Singapore courts.
The High Court noted that multiple applications had been filed and adjudicated in Singapore prior to the institution of the writ petition. The Court observed that, regardless of whether the petitioner accepted or challenged the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts, she was under a duty to make full and frank disclosure when seeking equitable and discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court held that concealment alone constituted a sufficient ground for refusing to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Such suppression of material facts undermined the petitioner’s claim for equitable relief and justified dismissal of the petition.
Welfare of the Child as the Paramount Consideration
The Court carefully examined the circumstances surrounding the child’s welfare. It observed that the child had been born in Singapore and had spent most of her life there, except for a limited period during which she stayed in India. The Court further noted that the child was receiving specialised treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder in Singapore and that the mother herself had consented to the child’s return to Singapore in December 2024.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that determining the welfare of a child suffering from ASD required a comprehensive evaluation of numerous factors, including medical care, educational arrangements, emotional stability, parental capabilities, and continuity of treatment.
Such questions, the Court observed, could not be satisfactorily resolved through affidavits alone in a summary writ proceeding.
Scope of Habeas Corpus in Child Custody Matters
The judgment contains a significant discussion on the nature and limits of habeas corpus jurisdiction in custody disputes.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the High Court reiterated that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy designed to secure immediate release from unlawful detention. In child custody matters, the writ is generally maintainable only where the custody is clearly illegal or without lawful authority.
The Court emphasised that ordinary remedies for child custody disputes are available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and related family law statutes. Where adjudication requires detailed examination of facts, evidence, and welfare considerations, courts exercising writ jurisdiction should ordinarily decline intervention and direct parties to pursue remedies before competent civil or family courts.
The Court noted that the present case involved numerous disputed questions of fact, allegations and counter-allegations, competing claims regarding the child’s welfare, and issues concerning jurisdiction. These circumstances rendered the matter unsuitable for determination through summary proceedings.
Hague Convention Argument Rejected
The petitioner had relied upon principles associated with the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. However, the High Court briefly noted that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. Consequently, the Convention could not directly govern the dispute or compel the return of the child to any particular jurisdiction.
While international principles and foreign judgments may have persuasive value, the Court clarified that Indian courts must ultimately determine custody disputes according to domestic legal principles and the paramount consideration of child welfare.
Family Court as the Appropriate Forum
A central conclusion of the judgment was that the Family Court constituted the appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute.
The High Court observed that the petitioner had already initiated guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act as well as matrimonial proceedings. These proceedings were capable of addressing issues relating to custody, guardianship, visitation rights, and the welfare of the child through a detailed evidentiary process.
The Court also noted that disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction and the ordinary residence of the child would need to be determined by the competent court after considering evidence from both sides. Such questions could not appropriately be decided in habeas corpus proceedings.
Decision of the Court
After considering all relevant circumstances, the Delhi High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue her claims regarding custody and visitation before the competent Family Court. It also clarified that its observations were confined to the maintainability of the writ petition and should not influence the Family Court’s independent determination of the merits of the custody dispute.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling underscores the limited role of habeas corpus in complex child custody disputes involving foreign jurisdictions. While habeas corpus remains an important remedy in cases of unlawful detention, courts are reluctant to employ it where detailed examination of welfare considerations, evidence, and competing factual claims is necessary.
The judgment also highlights the importance of full disclosure when invoking extraordinary constitutional remedies. Suppression of material facts, particularly ongoing foreign proceedings and relevant judicial orders, can itself justify dismissal of a writ petition.
Most importantly, the decision reaffirms a foundational principle of child custody jurisprudence: the welfare of the child is paramount. Determining what best serves that welfare often requires comprehensive examination by specialised family courts rather than summary adjudication through writ proceedings. In cross-border custody disputes involving special-needs children, international dimensions, and competing parental claims, Family Courts remain the most appropriate forum for balancing legal rights with the best interests of the child.