Appeal filed against a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the custody of a minor child. The High Court had ruled in favor of the biological father, directing the maternal grandmother (appellant) to hand over custody to him. The appellant-grandmother appealed this decision. The appeal argues that the custody was voluntarily given to the grandmother by the father due to specific circumstances, and hence, it should not be considered illegal. It also emphasizes the psychological trauma that could be caused by uprooting the child from their current environment.

1.     Background of the Case:

·         Marriage between Dr. Kulwant Singh and Sangeeta.

·         Birth of a child named Garvit.

·         Disappearance and subsequent death of Sangeeta.

·         Custody of Garvit initially given to the appellant-grandmother by the father.

2.     Legal Proceedings:

·         Complaints filed by various parties regarding custody.

·         Involvement of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).

·         Appeal filed by the appellant-grandmother challenging CWC's decision.

·         Appellate Court's decision favoring the appellant-grandmother.

·         Subsequent Writ Petition filed by the father before the High Court.

3.     High Court's Decision:

·         High Court ruled in favor of the father based on the welfare of the child.

·         Directed custody to be transferred to the father with visitation rights for the grandparents.

·         Allowed parties to pursue remedies under special laws.

4.     Arguments in the Appeal:

·         Appellant's counsel argues against the High Court's decision, emphasizing the voluntary nature of custody transfer and psychological well-being of the child.

5.     Counter-Arguments:

·         Respondent-father's counsel argues for the father's natural guardianship and ability to provide for the child's welfare.

6.     Legal Precedents and Principles:

·         Discussion on the maintainability of Habeas Corpus petitions in custody matters.

·         Reference to previous court rulings on similar cases.

7.     Court's Decision:

·         Court finds in favor of the appellant-grandmother, quashing the High Court's decision.

·         Emphasizes the need for a detailed inquiry into the welfare of the child.

·         Directs the father to pursue legal remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act.

·         Sets a timeline for decision-making on visitation rights.

8.     Conclusion:

·         Appeal allowed, pending applications disposed of.