Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/7157/2026 of GURSIMRAT GILL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS on 7 August 2026
(O&M) -1- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -2- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -3- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -4- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -5- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -6- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -7- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -8- CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M) -9- 12. It is equally well-settled that a High
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
12. It is equally well-settled that a High Court exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot function as a mere executing court to mechanically enforce a foreign court’s decree against a respondent residing within its territorial jurisdiction. In Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra), the apex Court expounded this restriction in the following words:- "29. The High Court while dealing with a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus concerning a minor child, in a given case, may direct return of the child or decline to change the custody of the child keeping in mind all the attending facts and circumstances including the settled legal position referred to above. Once again, we may hasten to add that the decision of the Court, in each case, must depend on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case brought before it whilst considering the welfare of the child which is of paramount consideration. The order of the foreign Court must yield to the welfare of the child. Further, the remedy of writ of habeas corpus cannot be used for mere enforcement of the directions given by the foreign court against a person within its jurisdiction and convert that jurisdiction into that of an executing court..."
13. This Court observes that the jurisdiction being exercised herein is rooted in the inherent equitable parens patriae power of the writ court to protect the welfare of the infant ward. Restoration of custody to the mother is AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
not being ordered as an execution of the Canadian judgment per se, but because the unilateral retention of the child by Respondent No. 4 in violation of established primary care arrangements constitutes an improper and illegal deprivation of custody that is detrimental to the child's overall well-being. AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
The rights flowing from foreign decrees or statutory guardianship provisions carry persuasive weight rather than absolute binding effect in custody disputes. The court must decide the issue not on the basis of competing legal claims of the parents, but strictly on the criterion of what best serves the minor child. In Dr. V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India [(2010) 1 SCC 174], as quoted with approval in Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra), the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held:
"27. ...whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest of the minor... '29. While dealing with a case of custody of a child removed by a parent from one country to another in contravention of the orders of the court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, the court in the country to which the child has been removed must first consider the question whether the court could conduct an elaborate enquiry on the question of custody or by dealing with the matter summarily order a parent to return custody of the child to the country from which the child was removed... While doing so, the order of a foreign court as to his custody may be given due weight; the weight and persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the circumstances of each case.'" AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRWP-7157-2026 (O&M)
AMIT KAUNDAL 2026.08.07 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh