Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for producing the detenu, who is a minor baby boy aged seven months old, viz., Nalla Hrishav Sai Achyut.

2. The Writ Affidavit states that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Panja Deepthi Lakshmi Phanija (daughter of the respondent No.5) on 11.05.2022. They were blessed with a baby boy on 05.01.2026. The wife of the petitioner (mother of the detenu) died on 31.03.2026 due to terminal illness. Admittedly, the petitioner paid a substantial amount of money for the treatment of his wife. The receipts showing the payments made to the concerned hospital reflects amounts in excess of Rs.73 lakhs. The petitioner also paid substantial amounts towards the needs of the detenu in June, 2026, i.e., after the demise of his wife. After the death of the petitioner’s wife, the respondent No.5, maternal grandparent of the detenu, made a request to the petitioner through a mediator to permit the detenu to live with her for a few days. The petitioner acceded to her request and sent the detenu to the home of the respondent No.5. However, the respondent No.5 did not allow the petitioner and his parents to interact with the detenu after that. The petitioner states that the detenu has been illegally detained by the respondent No.5.

3. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent No.5.

4. The petitioner is concerned that the detenu is not being looked after by the respondent No.5 properly. The Writ Affidavit further states that on 10.07.2026, when the petitioner visited the detenu, the petitioner found the detenu was suffering from high fever but that the respondent No.5 did not allow the petitioner’s mother to even touch the detenu. The petitioner’s request to the respondent No.5 to send the detenu to the petitioner for proper care was also refused. On 10.07.2026, the petitioner also found that the respondent No.5 had suddenly vacated the house at Brundavan Colony, Kamalanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District and had left the premises with the detenu to an undisclosed location. The respondent No.5 did not inform the petitioner about the change of her residence. According to the petitioner, the abrupt change of residence without any information has caused deep distress to him.

5. We also find that the respondent No.5 is a home-maker and does not have any source of income. The respondent No.5 is financially dependent on her younger daughter. The petitioner, on the other hand, is an Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India, Tumkunta Branch, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the firm view that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the claim of the petitioner to the custody of the minor child/detenu. In the absence of the mother, the petitioner, the biological father, is the natural guardian of his minor son/detenu.

7. It is evident that the respondent No.5 continues to forcefully detain the minor child/detenu without any jusitification. The only justification, as orally submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 to the Court, is that the petitioner has remarried on 24.06.2026 and hence, there is a likelihood of the detenu not receiving proper care from the petitioner. The other ground is that the detenu being taken away from the respondent No.5 would cause emotional trauma to the detenu.

8. We do not find any of the arguments made on behalf of the respondent No.5 to be tenable or justified for depriving the petitioner from the custody of the detenu since the petitioner is his biological father. The respondent No.5 has not been able to place a single instance of the detenu facing ill-treatment or jeopardy at the hands of the petitioner.

9. We reiterate that the petitioner has paid and continues to pay substantial amounts of money for the care of the detenu even while the detenu was with the respondent No.5. The petitioner also paid huge amounts of money for medical care of his late wife. The assumption that the petitioner will not look after the detenu by reason of his remarriage is without any basis.

10. It is also relevant that the petitioner, being in a stable and well-paying employment, is in a much better position to look after his son and ensure a stable future for his son. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent No.5 in changing her residence and shifting to a different and undisclosed location with the detenu, without informing the petitioner, reflects unreasonable and suspicious behaviour. Such behaviour leads to an assumption that the respondent No.5 intends to deprive the petitioner of his interaction with the detenu.

11. The argument made on behalf of the respondent No.5 that the petitioner should file for custody proceedings before an appropriate Court is, in fact, applicable to the respondent No.5 and not the petitioner. The petitioner is the biological father and natural guardian and has a statutory right to the custody of his minor son. We hence deem it fit to allow the Writ Petition.

12. W.P.No.22880 of 2026 is accordingly allowed, directing the respondent No.4-Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, to hand over the detenu (Nalla Hrishav Sai Achyut), to the petitioner by 17.08.2026. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.