# Km. Anchal Jain v. Sahkari Ganna Union & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 131
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-08
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 151 of 2014
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-anchal-jain-v-sahkari-ganna-union-ors-52811
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

12 All. Km. Anchal Jain Vs. Sahkari Ganna Union & Ors.
131
made in this Order, and the records shall
be remitted to the court concerned
forthwith to ensure formal compliance
with this order by the registry.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 131
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 151 of 2014

Km. Anchal Jain ...Appellant
Versus
Sahkari Ganna Union & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether has not awarded any amount of
compensation towards attendant and driver
charges, towards future prospect of the
claimant, future treatment expenses, non
pecuniary damages, such as, loss of marriage
prospect, loss of amenities, expenses of
physiotherapy which is erroneous.

Head Notes
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 173;
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,1998-Rule 220-A- As per Rule 220-A
of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998 the
claimant is also entitled to compensation
on future prospects at the rate of 50%
since she was aged about 16 years on the
date of the accident- Compensation has to
be assessed by applying multiplier of 18
whereas
the
tribunal
assessed
compensation by applying multiplier of 16,
which is inadequate- The tort-feasor
cannot take benefit of the gratuitous
service rendered by the family members-
Compensation payable to the claimant is
redetermined- Appeal allowed, award of
the tribunal modified.(E-15)

Held- The tribunal has awarded interest on
compensation from the date of adducing
evidence which is erroneous. The tribunal has
failed to appreciate that the claimant was
severely injured who was undergoing treatment,
as such, it took time to collect all the evidence.
In view of this, the claimant is entitled to
interest @7% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition, till its actual payment.
(Para 21, 22, 24 & 25)
Case Law Cited
FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar & Another
vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt. Ltd. & Another,
decided on 26.04.2017; Rahul Ganpatrao Sable
vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRS.
and others, (2023) 13 SCC 334; Sidram vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Another (2023) 3 SCC 439; Pappu Deo
Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790;
Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC
413 , Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(2022) 7 SCC 738, Baby Sakshi Greola vs.
Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3692 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs.
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another 2025 INSC
1070

List of Acts
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; The Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules,1998

List of Keywords
Rule 220-A; UP Motor Vehicle Rules,1998;
Claimant entitled to compensation on future
prospects at the rate of 50%; Tortfeasor cannot
take benefit of the gratuitous service rendered
by the family members

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 13.11.2013 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, E.C. Act Meerut in MACP No. 642
of 2009 whereby, for the injuries sustained by
the claimant in a road accident which occurred
on
29.12.2008,
a
compensation
of
Rs.
10,83,950/- along with interest at the rate of
7% per annum has been awarded to the
claimant, which has been ordered to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashish Gupta, Sanjay
Singh, Shantanu, Siddharth
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Singh
Parihar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for
enhancement of compensation has been
preferred by the claimant against the
impugned judgment and award dated
13.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
E.C. Act Meerut in MACP No. 642 of 2009
(Km. Anchal Jain vs. Sahkari Ganna Union
Mawana,Meerut and others), whereby, for
the injuries sustained by the claimant in a
road
accident
which
occurred
on
29.12.2008,
a
compensation
of
Rs.
10,83,950/- along with interest at the rate of
7% per annum has been awarded to the
claimant, which has been ordered to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
Bolero No.UP15-AF-3348.

2. Since there is no cross appeal by the
owner, driver and the insurer of the
offending vehicle as such, the factum of
accident and negligence of the offending
driver is not disputed by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant submitted that the claimant was
travelling as a pillion rider on Scooty
No.UP-15-AF-4501 at the time of the
accident and was returning home from her
school i.e. Sofia Girls School, Meerut then
the scooty was hit by the offending Bolero
No.UP15-AF-3348,
causing
grievous
injuries to the claimants due to which she
has suffered 100% permanent disability,
which was proved by examining ten
witnesses before the tribunal, but the
tribunal
has
awarded
inadequate
compensation to the claimant. He further
submitted that, from the evidence of Dr.
Sandeep Sehgal PW-9, it stands proved that
the claimant has suffered 100% permanent
disability. She is bedridden and living in a
vegetative state, unable to move her limbs
or body, and will remain confined to a
wheelchair for the rest of her life. She
cannot
speak,
is
undergoing
regular
physiotherapy and speech therapy, and
requires two attendants constantly to look
after her, as well as the services of a driver
for
attending
medical
treatment
and
hospital visits. However, despite this
evidence on record, the Tribunal has failed
to consider these circumstances.Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that in
the light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in a catena of decisions, the
claimants
are
at
least
entitled
to
compensation on the basis of minimum
wages paid to a skilled workmen, which
were prevalent at the time of the accident in
the State of U.P., which was approximately
Rs.4,500/- per month. He further submitted
that the claimant requires life long care and
attention, future treatment, her chances of
marriage have vanished, she has been
deprived from the loss of amenities, she has
become dependent on everyone, which
itself is a curse. The claimant was studying
in class X at the time of the accident in a
reputed English medium school of Meerut,
who had a very bright future, which has
become dark. Learned counsel for the
appellant-claimant
submitted
that
the
claimant is also entitled to compensation on
future prospects. With these submissions, it
was prayed that the appeal be allowed and
enhanced compensation be awarded to the
claimant.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company, has very
fairly conceded that keeping in view the
evidence on record, the tribunal has
awarded compensation on the lower side,
12 All. Km. Anchal Jain Vs. Sahkari Ganna Union & Ors.
133
which requires to be enhanced keeping in
view the precedents of the Apex Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for
both the sides and perused the documents
submitted with the appeal. Appeal is
admitted.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant
has examined Ajay Jain as PW-1, Ayushi
Mohan as PW-2, Dr. Ravindra Singh as
PW-3, Sanjay Kumar as PW-4, Noren
Umrav as PW-5, Deen Dayal as PW-6,
Dhoop Singh as PW-7, Ankur as PW-8, Dr.
Sandeep Sehgal as PW-9 and Sachin as
PW-10. Besides the above oral evidence,
documentary
evidence
of
treatment,
hospitalization, cash memos of medicines
purchased were also filed by the claimant.

7. PW-1 Ajay Jain, who is the father
of the claimant, deposed that the claimant
was admitted on 29.12.2008 at 10:00 AM
in Dayanand Nursing Home, Meerut and
later, on the same day she was admitted to
Hope Hospital, Meerut and from there, she
was taken to Ram Manohar Lohiya
Hospital, New Delhi where she remained
admitted from 04.02.2009 to 14.02.2009.
PW-1 further deposed that the treatment of
the claimant was continuing. The claimant
was being treated by speech therapist Dr.
Pooran Singh and Physiotherapist Dr.
Sanjay. The claimant was completely
bedridden who was neither able to move or
speak nor perform her routine work. She
was totally dependent on others.

8. PW-2 Ayushi Mohan who was
driving the scooty at the time of the
accident, deposed that the claimant was in
coma due to the injuries suffered in the
accident, who was unable to speak and was
completely bedridden. PW-3, Dr. Ravindra
Singh, an orthopedic surgeon, deposed that
the claimant, due to the injuries sustained
on her head, has suffered 100% permanent
disability and was unable to sit, move,
speak, or perform her routine activities. He
specifically stated that there was no
possibility of the claimant ever recovering
from the injuries sustained by her. He
further deposed that the claimant was
unable to speak or walk, and although the
left side of her body was normal, she has
suffered disability on the right side of her
body. PW-9 Dr. Sandeep Sehgal, who is a
neurosurgeon, deposed that the claimant
remained in his treatment, who was neither
able to stand nor walk. She was incapable
of holding or lifting any object with her
hands. She was also unable to speak. Her
treatment was still continuing. There was
neither any recovery of the claimant nor
there is any possibility of her recovery in
future. She was only able to move her
eyelids. She was unable to move her
muscles and perform any work. He
specifically
deposed
that
the
injury
sustained by the claimant was so severe
that she is in a vegetative state. PW-4
Sanjay Kumar deposed that if the claimant
does not receive physiotherapy, her joints
will become stiff, and therefore, she
requires
continuous
physiotherapy,
throughout her life.

9. PW-5 Noren Umrav proved that he
was employed as a domestic servant by
the claimant's father for taking care of
claimant,who was being paid salary of
Rs.4,000/- per month. Similarly, PW-7
Dhoop Singh deposed that he gives
speech therapy to the claimant. PW-10
Sachin deposed that he was working as a
driver with claimant's father and was
being paid salary of Rs.4,000/- per
month. He deposed that he takes the
claimant in the car to the hospital and
doctor for treatment.
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The judgment of the tribunal
specifically records that during argument,
the claimant was present in the Court on
wheelchair and when the court inquired her
about her health then she merely moved her
neck and she was unable to speak. The
tribunal has specifically recorded a finding
that the claimant was unable to speak and
she was only able to move on a wheelchair.
The tribunal was also convinced that due to
the injuries sustained by the claimant in her
brain, she has stopped speaking and
moving and the tribunal also concluded that
the
claimant
has
become
100%
permanently disabled but inspite of this, the
tribunal has only awarded a meager amount
of compensation to the claimant, which is a
travesty of justice.

11. It is apparent that the claimant was
about 16 years old at the time of the
accident, who was studying in class X in a
reputed college i.e. Sofia Girls School,
Meerut. She had a very bright future, which
has become dark due to the unfortunate
accident. The tribunal has assessed the
compensation by taking notional income of
the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per annum,
which is grossly inadequate. The tribunal
has applied multiplier of 16 for assessing
compensation, which is also erroneous. The
claimant alleged that she has incurred an
expenditure of Rs.15 lacs on her treatment
but could only submit the bills and cash
memos of treatment expenses amounting to
Rs.7,93,950/- which was allowed by the
tribunal.
The
tribunal
only
awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering.
The tribunal has not awarded any amount
of compensation towards attendant and
driver charges, towards future prospect of
the claimant, future treatment expenses,
non pecuniary damages, such as, loss of
marriage prospect, loss of amenities,
expenses of physiotherapy. In this way the
tribunal has not awarded any expenditure to
be incurred in future on the above heads,
which is erroneous.

12. The Apex Court in the case of
Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4
SCC 413 , Master Ayush vs. Branch
Manager, Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 7 SCC 738, Baby
Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon
& Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 and
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari & Another 2025 INSC
1070 has held that where a claimant has
suffered
100%
permanent
functional
disability
due
to
an
accident,
the
compensation under the head of loss of
income must be awarded, at the very least,
on the basis of the minimum wages of a
skilled workman prevailing at the time of
the accident in that region and should not
be assumed on a notional basis.

13. It is apparent that the tribunal has
concluded that the claimant has suffered
100% permanent disability due to the
injuries suffered in the accident, which has
not been challenged by the insurer of the
offending vehicle, as such, that finding of
the tribunal, has attained finality.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar
(2022) 13 SCC 790 (By Three Judges)
while considering the issue of awarding
future prospects in cases of permanent
disablement from motor accident, held as
under:-

7.
Two
questions
arise
for
consideration : one, whether in cases of
permanent disablement incurred as a result
of a motor accident, the claimant can seek,
apart from compensation for future loss of
income, amounts for future prospects too;
12 All. Km. Anchal Jain Vs. Sahkari Ganna Union & Ors.
135
and two, the extent of disability. On the
first question, the High Court no doubt, is
technically correct in holding that Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018)
3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]
involved assessment of compensation in a
case where the victim died. However, it
went wrong in saying that later, the threeJudge Bench decision in Jagdish [Jagdish
v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3
SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572]
was not binding, but rather that the
subsequent decision in Anant [Anant v.
Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 : (2018) 4 SCC
(Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] to the
extent that it did not award compensation
for future prospects, was binding. This
Court is of the opinion that there was no
justification for the High Court to have
read the previous rulings of this Court, to
exclude the possibility of compensation for
future prospects in accident cases involving
serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement. Such a narrow reading of
Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 205] is illogical, because it denies
altogether the possibility of the living
victim progressing further in life in
accident cases - and admits such
possibility of future prospects, in case of
the victim's death.

15. The Apex Court in the case of
Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another
(2023) 3 SCC 439, while directing that in
cases of serious permanent disability,
compensation for future prospects should
also be awarded, held as under:-

31. It is now a well-settled
position of law that even in cases of
permanent disablement incurred as a result
of a motor accident, the claimant can seek,
apart from compensation for future loss of
income, amounts for future prospects as
well. We have come across many orders of
different
tribunals
and
unfortunately
affirmed by different High Courts, taking
the view that the claimant is not entitled to
compensation for future prospects in
accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. That is
not a correct position of law. There is no
justification to exclude the possibility of
compensation for future prospects in
accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such a
narrow reading is illogical because it
denies altogether the possibility of the
living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases-and admits such possibility
of future prospects, in case of the victim's
death.

16. The Apex Court in the case of
Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs. Laxman
Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRS. and
others, (2023) 13 SCC 334 while directing
that in cases of permanent disability, there
should not be any deduction for personal
expenses, held as under:-

15. The High Court deducted
50% of compensation towards personal
expenses. The present case being not of
death and the claim not being made by the
dependents, but the same being by a
survivor in the accident with severe injuries
resulting into permanent disability, there
could not be any justification for deduction
of personal expenses. We do not approve
the said deduction in view of the judgment
of this Court in Lalan D. [Lalan D. v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC
805 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 253 : (2021) 1
SCC (Cri) 238]
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In the light of the above decisions
of the Apex Court it is apparent that in case
of permanent disability, the claimant is
entitled
to
compensation
for
future
prospects and there was no need to deduct
1/3rd or any other percentage from out of
the income of the claimant, towards the
personal and living expenses of the
claimant.

18. A Division Bench of this Court in
FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar &
Another vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt.
Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017 has
held that even if the accident occurred prior
to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to
compensation on future prospects as per
amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial
legislation.

19. The Apex Court in the case of
Rahul Ganpatrao Sable (supra) has
awarded compensation towards attendant
charges, future medical expenses, loss of
marriage prospects and pain and suffering.

20. Rule 220-A of the UP Motor
Vehicle Rules,1998 w.e.f. 26.09.2011,
mandates that when the deceased was aged
below 40 years on the date of accident, the
claimants are also entitled to compensation
on future prospects @50% of his income.

21. In the instant case, at the time of
the accident the minimum wages of skilled
workman in the State of U.P. was at least
Rs.4,500/- per month. Since the claimant
was about 16 years old at the time of the
accident who was studying in class X, who
had a very bright future, as such, it will be
appropriate that her income is taken as
Rs.4,500/- per month, for determining
compensation in this case. Besides that, as
per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle
Rules,1998 the claimant is also entitled to
compensation on future prospects at the
rate of 50% since she was aged about 16
years on the date of the accident. Besides
that, compensation has to be assessed by
applying multiplier of 18 whereas the
tribunal has assessed compensation by
applying multiplier of 16, which is
inadequate.

22. The tribunal has disallowed the
expenses incurred by the claimant towards
driver and attendant on the ground that
these jobs can be performed by the family
members of the claimant, which is a
perverse reasoning. It has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of Kajal (supra) that
the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of the
gratuitous service rendered by the family
members. The Apex Court has awarded
compensation for loss of earning to family
members, who remained busy in the
treatment of the claimant. Accordingly, the
claimant is entitled to get expenses incurred
on the driver @ Rs.4,000/- per month as
proved from the evidence of PW-10,
Sachin.

23. In view of the above statutory law
and precedents of the Apex Court, the
compensation payable to the claimant is
redetermined as under:-

S.
No
.
Compe
nsation
Heads
Amount
Awarded(in
Rs.)
In
Accord
ance
with.
1.
Monthly
Income
of the
claimant
on the
basis of
minimu
m
4,500/-
Kajal
(supra),
Master
Ayush
(supra),
Baby
Sakshi
Greola
12 All. Km. Anchal Jain Vs. Sahkari Ganna Union & Ors.
137
wages
of
skilled
workma
n
(supra)
and
Hitesh
Nagjib
hai
Patel
(supra)
2.
Annual
income
of the
claimant
4,500X12=
54,000/-
Kajal
(supra),
Master
Ayush
(supra),
Baby
Sakshi
Greola
(supra)
and
Hitesh
Nagjib
hai
Patel
(supra)
3.
Add
future
prospect
s @50%
since
claimant
was
about 16
years on
the date
of the
accident
.
27,000/-
UP
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,1
998,
Pappu
Deo
Yadav(s
upra)
and
Sidram
(supra)
4.
Total
annual
loss of
future
income
54,000+27,000
=81,000/-
UP
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,1
998,
Pappu
Deo
Yadav(s
upra)
and
Sidram
(supra)
5.
Multipli
er
applied
since
age of
claimant
was
about 16
years
18
Pranay
Sethi
(supra)
6.
Total
future
loss of
income
due to
100%
function
al
disabilit
y
81,000X18=14
,58,000/-
Pranay
Sethi(s
upra)
7.
Special
diet &
Transpo
rtation
expense
s during
treatme
nt
1,00,000/-
Hitesh
Nagjib
hai
Patel
(supra)
8.
Treatme
nt
expense
s
7,93,950/-
As
awarde
d by
tribuna
l
9.
Attenda
nt
expense
(1
attendan
t)
5,000X12X18
=10,80,000/-
Rahul
Ganpat
rao
Sable
(supra)
and
Kajal
(supra)
10. Compen
sation
towards
15,00,000/-
Kajal
(supra)
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pain,suf
fering
and loss
of
amenitie
s
11.
Loss of
marriag
e
prospect
s
3,00,000/-
Kajal
(supra)
and
Hitesh
Nagjib
hai
Patel
(supra)
12.
Future
medical
expense
s
Rs.5,00,000/-
Kajal
(supra)
13.
Future
expense
s on
driver
@Rs.4,
000/-
per
month
4,000X12X18
=8,64,000/-
Kajal
(supra)
14.
Total
compen
sation
65,95,950/-

24. In this way, the claimant is entitled
to total compensation of Rs.65,95,950/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum (as
awarded by the tribunal) from the date of
filing of the claim petition till it's actual
payment, which is to be indemnified by the
insurer of the offending vehicle.

25. It is apparent that the tribunal has
awarded interest on compensation from the
date of adducing evidence i.e. 19.09.2011,
which is erroneous. The tribunal has failed
to appreciate that the claimant was severely
injured who was undergoing treatment, as
such, it took time to collect all the
evidence. In view of this, the claimant is
entitled to interest @7% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition, till
its actual payment.

26. The appeal is allowed. The
award of the tribunal is modified to the
above extent.

27. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months.

28. The tribunal is directed to deposit
the total enhanced compensation alongwith
interest in a fixed deposit of a bank, bearing
maximum
monthly
interest
and
the
claimant through her father/mother/brother
will be entitled to withdraw the accrued
monthly interest regularly for sustaining
her livelihood. The tribunal will be at
liberty to permit withdrawal from fixed
deposit in special circumstances, keeping in
view the claimants' requirement.

29. The insurance company is directed
to apportion interest for every financial
year, from the date of accident till actual
payment of compensation. The whole
amount of interest payable to the claimant
in a financial year be considered her
income. After considering the tax free
limit, rebate available under Section 87A
and 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
for the relevant assessment year, only then
deduction of income tax on interest be
made, if it is taxable, otherwise no income
tax be deducted for that assessment year.
The PAN of the claimant should also be
considered.
----------
12 All. Smt. Rohini & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
139
(2025) 12 ILRA 139
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 572 of 2025

Smt Rohini & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the corpus is a minor and below 18
years of age, i.e., a child as defined under
Section 2 (12) of the Act, 2015 and the Child
Welfare Committee has the jurisdiction to take
the corpus under its care and protection or in
custody and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by
the Child Welfare Committee is liable to be
quashed?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226; The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2015Section 2(12), 27(9), 29 & 94; The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2016-Rule 19(2)- That
a writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be
entertained when a person is put to
judicial custody or police custody by the
competent Court by an order which
prima facie did not appear to be without
jurisdiction or was not passed in an
absolutely mechanical manner or was
not wholly illegal. -The order of the
court without jurisdiction or was passed
in an absolutely mechanical manner or
was wholly illegal, the petition for
Habeas Corpus would be maintainable-
Child
Welfare
Committee
has
not
recorded
any
finding
as
to
the
genuineness of the school records -
There is nothing on record disclosing the
source of entries made in the school
record- Child Welfare Committee has
also not taken the evidence of the
Principal of the institution to verify the
school
records
produced
before
it-
Father of the corpus was also not called
by the Child Welfare Committee to verify
the age of the corpus-Writ petition
allowed. (E-15)

Held- The order passed by the Child Welfare
Committee has been passed mechanically and
without any application of mind, is without
jurisdiction and nullity. The detention of the
petitioner in Government Children Home (Girls),
Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is without
jurisdiction.

Case Law Cited
Suresh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1579; P. Yuvaprakash vs. State
Rep. by Inspector of Police 2023 SCC OnLine SC
846; Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr.Ushaben vs.
State of Gujarat (2013) I SCC 314; Madhu
Limaye, In re, (1969) SCC 292; Ummu Sabeena
vs. State of Kerela & Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 781;
Rachna and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR
2021 All 109 (FB)

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226; The
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015; The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016

List of Keywords
Writ of Habeas Corpus; Maintainable ; order of
the court without jurisdiction; or absolutely
mechanical manner; or was wholly illegal.

Case Arising From
The order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Child
Welfare Committee detaining the petitioner in
Government Children Home (Girls), Swaroop
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shailendra Kumar
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

The present petition has been filed for
a writ of Habeas Corpus to release the