***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. –

1. By this intra-Court Appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent, appellants have challenged judgment dated 21.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a writ of habeas corpus filed by the biological parents (respondents No. 4 and 5 herein) has been accepted and appellants have been directed to hand over the custody of the minor child, Alisha, to them.

2. Factual position is not in dispute. Marriage of respondent No. 4 (mother) and respondent No. 5 (father) was solemnized on 18.12.2019, and out of the wedlock, the minor child, Alisha, was born on 25.11.2021. Respondent No.4 secured admission to a management course in Canada and shifted there on 07.12.2023 on a student visa. She was followed by respondent No.5 on 07.02.2024. Owing to practical difficulties, the minor child could not accompany her parents and was left in the care of the joint family at Ambala. When the elder brother of respondent No.5 was diagnosed with Stage-III cancer, the entire focus of the family shifted towards his medical care at AIIMS, Bathinda and temporarily the minor child was sent to reside with her paternal aunt, appellant No.1 and her husband i.e. appellant No.2.

3. After the biological parents of the child established themselves and obtained work visas in Canada, they completed the documentation for the child's immigration. Canadian Government issued a travel visa to the minor child which is valid from 21.01.2025 to 10.10.2028. When the natural parents returned to India to take their minor daughter with them, appellants refused to restore her custody, forcing the parents to successfully invoke the writ jurisdiction.

4. Counsel for the appellants has argued that a petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable in matters pertaining to the custody of a minor child and the private respondents should take recourse to appropriate remedy. He urges that the custody of the child is neither illegal nor unlawful, as she has been orally adopted by the appellants who have instituted a civil suit, seeking declaration regarding her custody and for a decree of permanent injunction, before competent Civil Court at Ambala. Still further, it has been argued that shifting the child, who is admitted in a school at Ambala, to an entirely new place will not be in the welfare of the child.

5. We have heard counsel for the appellants and considered his arguments besides examining the paper book.

6. The primary challenge of the appellants to the maintainability of the writ petition, on account of pendency of a civil suit is unsustainable. It has been settled by the Supreme Court, in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2020) 3 SCC 67; Manju Tiwari v. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another, 1990 AIR SC 1156; Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413 and Roxann Sharma vs Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318 that a habeas corpus petition for restoration of custody of a minor child to his/her natural parents is maintainable. In Yashita Sahu's case (Supra), Apex Court held that where the court is of the view that a detailed inquiry is required, Court may decline to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach competent Civil Court. But in a case such as present one, where the natural parents have invoked writ jurisdiction, there can be no dispute regarding the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition.

7. Insofar as the appellant's claim of oral adoption is concerned, it is completely devoid of legal sanction. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ( for short “Act of 1956”), requires a strict compliance of the statutory provisions including a registered adoption deed or proof of ceremonies of “giving and taking”. A temporary familial arrangement, necessitated by a medical or financial emergency, cannot be permitted to be treated as an oral adoption to divest the natural parents of the custody of their minor child. Section 6 of the Act of 1956, explicitly declares the natural parents as the legal guardians of a minor hindu child. A parental aunt or uncle and other relatives or blood relation, do not possess any preferential right to custody of a minor child over the biological and natural parents.

8. While evaluating the question of custody of a minor child, child’s welfare is of paramount consideration. In the present case, the biological parents have demonstrated that they are comfortably settled abroad, they possess valid work visas and have secured the requisite travel documents and clearances from the Canadian Government for the minor child. The child also has a younger biological brother born in Canada. Restricting the minor child from growing up under the love and care of her natural parents, alongside her sibling, will amount to depriving her of a normal, healthy childhood and emotional security essential for her overall development. Learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that a temporary caregiving arrangement cannot be invoked to indefinitely deny custody to the natural parents. We do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the approach of the learned Single Judge.

9. For the afore-going reasons, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed though with no order as to costs.

10. All pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********