“Child Is Not a Chattel or a Ball That Is Bounced To and Fro”: Tripura HC Orders Minor’s Custody to Biological Mother

The Tripura High Court has directed that the custody of a minor girl presently residing in a child care institution in Vellore be handed over to her biological mother, holding that her continued stay away from her natural guardian was unauthorized, arbitrary and amounted to unlawful detention.

Emphasising that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters, the Court ruled that once biological motherhood stood conclusively established, there was no legal justification for continued separation of the child from her mother.

The Court further held that in habeas corpus petitions involving minors, the writ court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction and may intervene where custody is without authority of law.

A Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.9 (Hope House, Vellore) to hand over custody of the minor child to the petitioner-mother under proper acknowledgment.

The Bench also directed the State of Tripura to depute a senior police officer to accompany the petitioner to bring the child back on or before 15.02.2026, and instructed respondents in Tamil Nadu to extend full cooperation. The Court clarified that failure to comply would amount to willful disobedience of its order.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention of the petitioner’s four-year-old daughter.

The child had initially been taken to various hospitals for medical treatment relating to colostomy complications and was eventually admitted to Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore. During the course of treatment, allegations of abuse were raised, and a complaint under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was lodged against the parents.

The Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Vellore took custody of the child, who was subsequently placed at Hope House, a child care institution.

The petitioner contended that she was denied access to her daughter, that allegations of psychiatric illness were levelled against her without basis, and that she was even asked to undergo DNA testing to prove biological motherhood.

She further alleged that despite repeated correspondence from authorities in Tripura, custody was not restored.

During the proceedings, a DNA test was conducted at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Tripura. The report dated 12.04.2023 concluded with a probability of around 99.99% that the petitioner is the biological mother of the child; The Court recorded that once this scientific determination was made, the presumption of lawful custody with the mother stood reinforced.

A preliminary objection was raised regarding territorial jurisdiction, since the child was physically present in Tamil Nadu. The High Court rejected the objection, observing that the cause of action originated in Tripura and was continuing in nature.

The Bench noted that technical objections cannot override substantive justice, particularly in matters concerning the bond between a mother and her minor child.

The Court undertook a virtual interaction with the child and recorded that she appeared cheerful, mentally alert and physically stable. Medical reports indicated that she had undergone surgeries and therapy and was under continued supervision.

However, the Bench clarified that custody decisions cannot be reduced merely to medical assessments and must be guided by the broader principle of welfare of the child.

Relying upon Supreme Court precedents including Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42, Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 8 SCC 454 and Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw (1987) 1 SCC 42, the Court reiterated that habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters where detention is unlawful and that the writ court acts as parens patriae.

It emphasised that in determining custody, courts are not bound strictly by statutory provisions or procedural technicalities but must focus on the child’s welfare, emotional security and natural guardianship.

Significantly, the Bench held that shifting of custody from CMC to Hope House during the pendency of proceedings without obtaining judicial permission was unauthorized and ultra vires.

It also observed that Hope House could not continue to retain custody in the absence of express judicial sanction, particularly when the biological mother had established her legal entitlement.

The Court furthermore observed that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the mother is the natural guardian of a minor child, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, custody should ordinarily rest with her.

It found no legal authority justifying continued separation of the child from her biological mother.

Allowing the petition, the Court directed immediate compliance and warned that non-compliance would be treated as willful violation of judicial orders. It further directed that once the child arrives in Tripura, the State shall ensure proper supervision of her physical and mental health condition.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Case Title: Smt. Prabha Rani Das v. State of Tripura & Ors.

Bench: Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha

Date of Judgment: 04.02.2026