Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Tripura Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha allowed a mother’s habeas corpus plea and directed a child care institution in Vellore to hand over the custody of her minor daughter to her, with the Tripura government asked to depute a senior police officer to accompany her and ensure the child’s return by February 15, 2026, followed by monitoring of the child’s physical and mental health after arrival. The dispute arose after the child’s treatment at a Vellore hospital and her continued placement in institutional care amid allegations of abuse and questions over maternity. The Bench said custody questions are “a humane problem… solved with human touch” and the child’s welfare remains the focal point, not a technical reading of provisions.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court

The respondents contended that the Child Welfare Committee, Vellore took custody of the child after medical reports indicated severe injuries and suspected abuse. The child underwent surgeries and continued therapy under medical supervision. DNA testing conducted at SFSL, Narsingarh confirmed that the petitioner was the biological mother of the child. The dispute centered on whether the continued custody of the child in the institution was lawful and in the welfare of the minor.

The Court observed that “No law can deprive the child or mother from their bondage, love and affection and the relation cannot be denied.” It recorded that “the arbitrary and highhandedness of the respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 in separating both mother and child all these years” could not be overlooked.

Referring to the DNA report, the Court recorded that “the probability of Mrs. Prabha Rani Das to be the biological mother… is approximately 99.999999725 per cent” and concluded that “Mrs. Prabha Rani Das is the biological mother of Ms. Pratiti Chakraborty.”

On the issue of custody, the Court stated that “the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child.” It further observed that “The child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro. It is only the child’s welfare which is the focal point for consideration.”

Examining maintainability of habeas corpus, the Court recorded that “in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child… was illegal and without any authority of law.” It noted that once it is ascertained that the mother is the biological parent, “it can be presumed that the custody of the minor with her mother is lawful.”

On the conduct of the hospital and child care institution, the Court held that “the action of the respondent No.8 in not obtaining the necessary permission to shifting the custody of the minor child… is unauthorized, arbitrary and Ultra vires.” It further recorded that “the Hope House cannot keep the custody of the child… needs to be treated… as an unlawful detention of the minor child.”

The Court directed that “the writ petition is allowed and, accordingly, the same is ordered directing the respondent No.9 to handover the custody of the child under proper acknowledgement to the mother, the petitioner herein.” It further ordered that “The respondent No.1 is directed to depute senior police officer to accompany the petitioner to bring back the child under proper care and custody from children welfare house on or before 15.02.2026.”

Also Read: Denial Of Regular Pay After Regular Selection Is Unconstitutional Discrimination And Exploitation: Tripura High Court Quashes Five-Year Fixed-Pay Teacher Policy

The Court also directed that “The respondents No.4 to 9 are also directed to extend their support and do the needful in compliance of this order. It is needless to say that the expenditure that would be incurred to be borne by the petitioner.”

“Non compliance of this order in handing over the custody of the minor child… forthwith would amount to violation and willful disobedience of this Court orders and could be viewed against the concerned persons. Once the child arrives at the State of Tripura, the State shall look into the physical and mental health condition of the minor child and proper supervision to be done accordingly, if required.”

“Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. P. K. Biswas, Senior Advocate; Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate; Mr. R. Nath, Advocate; Mr. P. Biswas, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Advocate General; Mr. R. Datta, Public Prosecutor; Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate; Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate.

Case Title: Smti. Prabha Rani Das v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) (HC) No.14 of 2022
Bench: Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, Justice S. Datta Purkayastha