PRAYAGRAJ, April 19 -- The Allahabad high court has held that a father, as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, cannot be accused of "illegal detention" for taking custody of his child-even forcibly-unless such action violates a court order. In an order dated April 10, a bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother, terming it non-maintainable. The petitioner alleged that her estranged husband had forcibly taken away their two minor children at gunpoint in 2022 and had kept them in "illegal detention" since then. She further submitted that despite filing multiple applications before various forums seeking custody, no effective action had been taken. Relying on the high court's recent ruling in Rinku Ram @ Rinku Devi vs State of UP, the petitioner argued that the court could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the best interest of the child, even when the child is in the custody of another parent. Opposing the plea, the state and the respondent's counsel contended that the children had been living with their father since 2022 and that the petitioner had not pursued remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act. They also argued that custody disputes between parents are ordinarily not adjudicated through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They further distinguished the Rinku Ram judgment, noting that it involved custody taken in violation of a directive issued by the Child Welfare Committee, which is not the case here. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Tejaswini Gaud vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the bench observed that habeas corpus in child custody matters is maintainable only when the custody is illegal or without lawful authority. The court also examined Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises removing a minor from the custody of a lawful guardian. It clarified that the offence applies only when the person taking the child is not a lawful guardian. Referring to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Section 4(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, the court reiterated that the father is recognised as a natural guardian under law. Accordingly, the bench held that even if the allegation of forcible custody is accepted at face value, it does not amount to illegal detention. The court also noted that the children, both over five years old, had been living with their father since 2022, and no exceptional circumstances were presented to show that their custody was illegal or detrimental. Maintaining that the present petition is not maintainable and no interference is called for, the court dismissed the plea....