Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the custody of a minor is secured under a judicial order of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Bench dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her 11-year-old son as his natural guardian and directed that the child remain under institutional care as ordered by the CWC, while allowing the father to seek custody or visitation through appropriate legal proceedings.

The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of an 11-year-old boy, seeking his production before the Court and his release from what she described as illegal custody of State authorities. She claimed that as the natural guardian she was entitled to his custody.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Rape-on-Promise-of-Marriage Case, Terms FIR a ‘Vehicle for Vengeance’ Following Workplace Dispute

The boy’s parents had been divorced by a competent court. After the separation, the child initially stayed with his father. The mother later lodged a criminal complaint against the father under sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, which resulted in his incarceration. In the absence of both parents’ care, the child was presented by the police before the District Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Amethi.

According to the record, the child refused to live with his mother, stating that she had left him at a very young age, and also expressed reluctance to live with his father. Treating the boy as a child in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the CWC initially placed him in Gandhi Seva Niketan Bal Grih, Rae Bareli, and later at Rajkiya Bal Griha, Lucknow. On 12 June 2025, the CWC directed his admission to Dayanand Bal Sadan in Lucknow for his education and welfare.

In the habeas corpus proceedings, the mother contended that the child’s continued placement in institutional care was unjustified and that she should be granted custody as his natural guardian. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the child’s custody was the result of a valid judicial order passed by the CWC under the Juvenile Justice Act and could not be challenged through a writ of habeas corpus.

Evidence before the Court included the CWC’s orders, reports from institutional authorities about the child’s welfare, and the child’s own statements made before the Court expressing his preference to remain in the institution rather than live with either parent.

The Court stated, “If the petitioner corpus is in custody as per judicial orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a Court of competent jurisdiction or a Child Welfare Committee under the J.J. Act, such an order cannot be challenged in a writ of habeas corpus.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1973) 2 SCC 674, the Bench reiterated that a habeas corpus writ is procedural and intended only to inquire into the legality of detention. “The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty,” the judgment quoted, further noting that such writs cannot be issued against lawful judicial custody.

The Court also referred to Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42, observing that habeas corpus proceedings are maintainable only where the detention of a minor is illegal or without authority of law. “In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies under the Guardians and Wards Act or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,” the Court noted, stating that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is limited to exceptional cases.

Citing the Full Bench decision in Rachna v. State of U.P. (AIR 2021 All 109), the Court recorded, “An illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee sending the victim to a Child Care Home cannot be treated as illegal detention.”

The Court noted, “The Juvenile Justice Act provides a complete mechanism dealing with the welfare of the child. The Committee exercises the powers of a Judicial Magistrate and functions as a Bench.” Hence, the proper remedy for any aggrieved party lies in an appeal or revision under Sections 101 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court held: “The custody which is presently with the said respondent cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful detention and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus would not be entertainable in the facts of the case,”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Bench directed the Sub-Inspector concerned and the in-charge of the Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balak), Mohan Road, Lucknow, to ensure the safe return of the minor to Dayanand Bal Sadan, Moti Nagar, Lucknow, from where he had been brought to Court.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Remove Next Friend of Deity in Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah Title Dispute, Holds No Adverse Interest Proven Under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC

The Bench stated, “In the event he files such an application, the competent court shall decide the same expeditiously.” It further directed that an order regarding visitation rights should be passed within four weeks from the date of filing.

The Court also provided interim relief to facilitate the father’s contact with the child. It ordered that Mr. Ojha may visit Dayanand Bal Sadan once a month for up to three hours, with prior permission from the competent authority. Such meetings would be supervised by the home’s administration. “During the said meeting, the respondent shall strictly follow the instructions of the concerned authorities,” the order stated, adding that the arrangement would continue until a competent court issued a formal order on visitation rights.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri G.D. Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate; Sri Om Prakash Yadav, Advocate; Sri R.M. Yadav, Advocate

Case Title: XXX (Minor) through Natural Guardian Mother v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:53828-DB
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 308 of 2025

Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi