# Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi v. State Of U.P. & Ors. 290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 289
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-08
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 308 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mayank-ojha-minor-thru-here-natural-guardian-mother-shashi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53910
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

maintainable against a judicial order, i.e. an
order passed by the Child Welfare Committee
under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act-2015- Sections
2, 27, 37, 101 & 102- Person aggrieved by
an order passed by the Child Welfare
Committee can file an appeal under
Section 101 of the JJ Act. JJ Act provides
the revisional forum before the High Court
-It cannot be presumed that in case the
corpus is in Children's Home pursuant to
an order passed by the 'Child Welfare
Committee'; then the same is neither
without
jurisdiction
nor
illegal
or
perverse, keeping in mind the provisions
of
Juvenile
Justice
Act,
2015,
the
detention of the corpus cannot be said to
be illegal and in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order of the 'Child
Welfare Committee', the petitioner is at
liberty to take recourse of remedy of
Appeal
or
Revision
provided
under
Sections 101 & 102 of the Juvenile Justice
Act- Petition dismissed.

Held-The order passed by the Committee
pursuant to which the corpus has been sent to
Children's Home is a judicial order and hence
the detention of corpus cannot be termed to be
illegal.(E-15)
(Para 26, 27 & 29)

Case Law Cited

Kanu
Sanyal
versus
District
Magistrate,
Darjeeling and Others; reported in (1973) 2 SCC
674; Tejaswini Gaude versus Shekhar Jagdish
Prasad Tewari reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42;
Rachna and another versus State of U.P. and
others; reported in AIR 2021 All 109 (FB);
Nirmala versus Kulwant Singh and others;
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 595

List of Acts
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act-2015; The Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890

List of Keywords
Habeas Corpus not maintainable against judicial
order;
Orders
by
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction; Child Welfare Committee; Juvenile
Justice Act; Appellate or Revisional forum

Case Arising From
Upon refusal of the petitioner corpus to go with
his mother and father being in Jail; he was sent
to 'Gandhi Seva Niketan Bal Grih', Rae Bareli
under the order / directions of the Child Welfare
Committee, District- Amethi, dated 24.02.2024.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar
Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Om Prakash
Yadav, Ram Milan Yadav

## Text

_Characters 0–39,805 of 48,246. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39805 for what follows._

9 All. Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 289
having competent jurisdiction. In such a factual
matrix, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the
period during which he prosecuted the case
before the court having no jurisdiction in view
of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, and may also seek adjustment of court fee
paid in that court. However, after presentation
before the court of competent jurisdiction, the
plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and
the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it
stood concluded before the court having no
competence to try the same"

"Joginder Tuli [Joginder Tuli v. S.L.
Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502] was also noticed in
Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2) [Harshad
Chimanlal Modi (2) v. DLF Universal Ltd.,
(2006) 1 SCC 364] but distinguished on its own
facts."

18. It is apparent from the law laid down
by the Apex Court in Balram Yadav(supra)
that the relief of declaration of validity of
marriage or the matrimonial status of any
person can only be granted by the Family court,
as such, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
decide the suit and in view of this, the trial court
has not committed any illegality in coming to
the conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to
decide the plaintiff's suit.

19. It is also apparent from the law laid
down by the Apex Court in EXL Careers &
Another(supra) that where the court lacked
jurisdiction, then plaint has to be returned in
view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC,
to enable the plaintiff to present it before the
court having competent jurisdiction. In the
instant case, after concluding that it lacked
jurisdiction, the trial court has erred in
dismissing the suit and, in not returning the
plaint to the plaintiff, for presentation to the
competent court of jurisdiction, and this
illegality committed by the trial court, needs to
be rectified in this appeal.

20. It is also apparent that the court of
appeal or revision may also direct, after setting
aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of
the plaint for presenting it before the court of
competent jurisdiction.

21. Accordingly, the appeal is
partly
allowed.
The
impugned
judgment and decree of the trial court
dated 17.09.2022, in so far, as the
rejection of the whole suit is concerned,
is set aside. The finding of the trial
court that the suit is not maintainable
for lack of jurisdiction, is upheld.

22. The trial court is directed to return the
original plaint to the plaintiff in accordance with
the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, for
presentation before the court of competent
jurisdiction.

23.
However,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.

24. Office is directed to prepare the decree
accordingly.

25. Office is also directed to send back the
original trial court record.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 289
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 308 of 2025

Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural
Guardian Mother Shashi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjeev Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Om Prakash Yadav, Ram Milan Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Whether Writ of Habeas Corpus is not
maintainable against a judicial order, i.e. an
order passed by the Child Welfare Committee
under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act-2015- Sections
2, 27, 37, 101 & 102- Person aggrieved by
an order passed by the Child Welfare
Committee can file an appeal under
Section 101 of the JJ Act. JJ Act provides
the revisional forum before the High Court
-It cannot be presumed that in case the
corpus is in Children's Home pursuant to
an order passed by the 'Child Welfare
Committee'; then the same is neither
without
jurisdiction
nor
illegal
or
perverse, keeping in mind the provisions
of
Juvenile
Justice
Act,
2015,
the
detention of the corpus cannot be said to
be illegal and in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order of the 'Child
Welfare Committee', the petitioner is at
liberty to take recourse of remedy of
Appeal
or
Revision
provided
under
Sections 101 & 102 of the Juvenile Justice
Act- Petition dismissed.

Held-The order passed by the Committee
pursuant to which the corpus has been sent to
Children's Home is a judicial order and hence
the detention of corpus cannot be termed to be
illegal.(E-15)
(Para 26, 27 & 29)

Case Law Cited

Kanu
Sanyal
versus
District
Magistrate,
Darjeeling and Others; reported in (1973) 2 SCC
674; Tejaswini Gaude versus Shekhar Jagdish
Prasad Tewari reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42;
Rachna and another versus State of U.P. and
others; reported in AIR 2021 All 109 (FB);
Nirmala versus Kulwant Singh and others;
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 595

List of Acts
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act-2015; The Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890

List of Keywords
Habeas Corpus not maintainable against judicial
order;
Orders
by
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction; Child Welfare Committee; Juvenile
Justice Act; Appellate or Revisional forum

Case Arising From
Upon refusal of the petitioner corpus to go with
his mother and father being in Jail; he was sent
to 'Gandhi Seva Niketan Bal Grih', Rae Bareli
under the order / directions of the Child Welfare
Committee, District- Amethi, dated 24.02.2024.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar
Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Om Prakash
Yadav, Ram Milan Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.
G.D.Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents as well as Sri. R. M. Yadav,
Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on
behalf of opposite party No. 7, which is
taken on record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:

"I. Issue a writ or order in the
nature of Habeas Corpus is direct the
opposite party no. 2 & 3 to produce the
corpus of the petitioner Mayank Ojha aged
about 11 years Son of Surya Prakash Ojha
before this Hon'ble Court he may be
released from the illegal and unjustified
9 All. Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 291
custody and detention of the opposite party
no.2 and 3 and in case if the opposite party
no.2 and 3 failed to ensure the production
of the corpus of the petitioners to directed
the opposite party no-2 to 6 to ensure the
production of the petitioner before this
Hon'ble Court on date fixed by the Hon'ble
Court and after recording her free
statement, he may be released from the
illegal
and
unjustified
custody
and
detention of the opposite party no.2 and 3
and give the custody of her mother of the
petitioner.

II. That in case if the opposite
party no.2 failed to ensure the production
of the corpus of the petitioner to directed
the opposite party no. 3 to ensure the
production of the petitioner before this
Hon'ble Court on date fixed by the Hon'ble
Court and after recording her free
statement, he may be released from the
custody of the opposite party no.02 an 3
and give the custody of her mother of the
petitioner."

3. This Court on 26.08.2025 passed an
Order, operative part whereof is extracted
herein below for ready reference:

"7A.
Having
considered
the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and also to know the willingness of
the detenue Mayank Ojha, his presence
would be required before this Court on the
next date.

8. List this case on 08.09.2025.

9. On that date, the detenue
Mayank Ojha shall appear before this
Court and his appearance shall be ensured
by the Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Grih
(Balak), Mohaan Road, Lucknow and a
copy of this order be provided to the
Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balak),
Mohaan Road, Lucknow, by registered
post/speed post within three working days
for its compliance.

10. On the next date, the mother
of the detenue (petitioner here) namely
Shashi and opposite party no. 7- Surya
Prakash Ojha (father of the detenue) shall
appear in person before this Court.

11. The Station House Officer,
Police Station Sangrampur, District Amethi
shall ensure the presence of opposite party
no. 7 on the next date.

12. Learned A.G.A. shall intimate
this order to the Station House Officer,
Police
Station
Sangrampur,
District
Amethi, for its compliance "

4. In compliance of the aforesaid
Order, Ms. Shashi the mother of the
child/petitioner corpus namely Mayank
Ojha
and
Mr.
Surya
Prakash
Ojha
(respondent No. 7) are present before this
Court.

5. The child/corpus namely Mayank
Ojha, aged about 11 years, son of Mrs.
Shashi and Mr. Surya Prakash Ojha is also
present-in-person. His presence before this
Court has been ensured by Mr. Ram
Krishna Awasthi, In-charge of 'Rajkiya Bal
Griha (Balak)', Mohan Road, Lucknow.

6. Mr. Ram Krishna Awasthi has
stated that earlier the child/corpus was
placed at 'Rajkiya Bal Griha (Balak)',
Mohan Road, in his custody, however, at
present he is boarding at 'Dayanand Bal
Sadan', Motinagar, Lucknow. He further
submitted that in pursuance of the letter
communicating the Court's Order dated
26.08.2025, he being the In-charge of
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'Rajkiya Bal Griha (Balak)'; has given
company to the child/petitioner corpus. He
informed the Court that the petitioner
corpus is enjoying his life in congenial and
healthy atmosphere at 'Dayanand Bal
Sadan', Motinagar, Lucknow. He has
already been admitted to a school having
good reputation and standard, where he is
studying properly and participates in
extracurricular activities. He is a very sharp
/ brilliant student and has secured first
division.

7. Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, SubInspector,
Police
Station-Sangrampur,
Amethi has ensured the presence of the
respondent No. 7 as well as the child/
petitioner corpus.

8. The child/petitioner corpus namely
Master Mayank Ojha who is present before
this Court appears to be a normal child with
sharp
and
healthy
mind
having
commendable ability to understand and
answer the queries of the Court properly.

9. On being asked by the Court, as to
whether he is willing to live with his
mother namely Mrs. Shashi, who by means
of the instant petition has come before this
Court as natural guardian of the petitioner
corpus; the child/corpus namely Mayank
Ojha outrightly refused to accept the said
proposal by saying that he is not at all
willing to go and live with his mother. In
reply to a pointed query as to why he is not
willing to live with his own mother, he
categorically stated that he does not like his
mother as she had left him while he was just
two years old baby. On being further asked as
to whether he wants to go and live with his
father Mr. Surya Prakash Ojha, the child
reluctantly stated that although he has no
objection in living with his father, but he
would prefer to stay at 'Dayanand Bal
Sadan', Motinagar, Lucknow where he is
presently residing. He not only uttered
satisfaction with his present status of living at
'Dayanand Bal Sadan' Motinagar, rather
expressed happiness over the same.

10. Mr. Surya Prakash Ojha, the father
of the child/corpus, on being asked as to
whether he remarried after the dissolution of
marriage with Ms. Shashi; he stated that
though he got remarried, but his second wife
died after some time. At present he is living
alone at Faridabad on account of his job,
where he is presently working as Quality
Supervisor at Mehra Metal, Faridabad,
Haryana.

11. Replying to the query of the Court
that whether the father of the petitioner
corpus ever visited the aforesaid Child Home
to meet his son; the In-charge 'Rajkiya Bal
Griha (Balak)', Mr. Ram Krishna Awasthi,
quoted an incident that Mr. Surya Prakash
Ojha once along with a lady came to
'Dayanand Bal Sadan', Motinagar, Lucknow
and told that he has come to celebrate the
birthday of his son Mayank Ojha. But, on
verification it was found that the said lady
was not the mother of the petitioner corpus.
In such a situation suspecting some foul play
the concerned authority did not permit him to
meet the petitioner.

12. Confronting the aforesaid allegation,
Mr. Surya Prakash Ojha fairly conceded that
the said lady was not the mother of the
petitioner but his maid, however, he had
wrongly introduced her as the mother of the
child just to manage a meeting with his son.
He has stated that he is willing to live with
his son Mayank Ojha and also undertaken
that he will take care of him properly.

13. Per contra, Mr. G.D.Bhatt, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate;
9 All. Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 293
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents, on the basis of the instructions
/ comments dated 20.08.2025 as furnished by
Mr. Ram Prakash Yadav, Sub- Inspector,
Police Station-Sangrampur, District- Amethi;
submits that on account of the fact that the
relationship between the mother and father of
the petitioner corpus are so strained that they
got their marriage dissolved from the Court
of law. Moreover, the mother namely Mrs.
Sashi lodged an First Information Report
against Surya Prakash Ojha (father of the
Petitioner corpus) and succeeded in sending
him to jail in Case Crime No. 120/23 under
section 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. Further,
due to the explicit refusal of the petitioner
corpus to go with his mother namely Ms.
Sashi and father Surya Prakash Ojha being in
Jail; he was sent to 'Gandhi Seva Niketan Bal
Grih', Rae Bareli under the order / directions
of the Child Welfare Committee, District-
Amethi, dated 24.02.2024.

14. The extract of the instruction /
comment dated 20.08.2025 as has been
placed before this Court by the learned
Additional
Government
Advocate,
is
quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:

"उपरोि बन्दी प्रत्यक्षीकरण यामचका के सम्बन्ध में
आख्या इस प्रकार है:-

1- प्रटतर-1 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी के मनजी ज्ञान
एवं अमभलेख से संबंमधत हैं, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं करनी है।

2- प्रटतर-2 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी के मनजी ज्ञान
एवं अमभलेख से संबंमधत है, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं करनी है।

3-प्रत्तर-3 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी द्वारा मा०
न्यायालय से की गयी याचना से संबंमधत है, मजसके द्वारा यामचनी ने
डेटेन्यू को मा० न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रटतुत मकये जाने एवं डेटेन्यू
डेटेन्यू को यामचनी / उसकी माता की सुपुदटगी में में मदया जायेगा।

इस संबंध में अवगत कराना है मक डेटेन्यू मयंक
ओझा के माता-मपता (यामचनी श्रीमती शमश व मवपक्षी सं0-7 सूयट
प्रकाश ओझा) के मध्य काफी मदनी से मववाद चल रहा था और
सक्षम न्यायालय के द्वारा मवमधक रूप से तलाक हो चुका है मयंक के
मपता/मवपक्षी सं0-7 सूयट प्रकाश ओझा मन०ग्रा० पता उपरोि के
द्वारा न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत को प्रेमित पत्र में मयंक की
माता श्रीमती शमश ओझा पुत्री शीतला प्रसाद मतवारी ग्रा० होलमन
मतवारी का पुरवा ब्लाक भेटुआ थाना जनपद अमेठी का सक्षम
न्यायालय द्वारा मवमधक रूप से तलाक हो जाने के पश्चात वतटमान में
दूसरी शादी करके दूसरे पमत एवं बडे बेटे ऋमि ओझा के साथ
हररयाणा में रहने का उकलेख मकया गया है तथा मयंक के
मपता/मवपक्षी सं०-7 सूयटप्रकाश ओझा को उसकी पूवट पत्नी शमश
ओझा के द्वारा मु०अ०सं०-120/23 अन्तगटत धारा 420, 467 व
468 आई.पी.सी. में दजट कराकर जेल भेजवाया गया ऐसी मटथमत में
मयंक /डेटेन्यू मनरामश्रत होने के कारण न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत
जनपद अमेठी के समक्ष पुमलस द्वारा प्रटतुत मकया गया। बालक/डेटेन्यू
मयंक ने अपनी माता शमश के साथ जाने से यह कहते हुए इन्कार कर
मदया मक मुझे तुम 2 साल की उम्र में छोडकर चली गई थी और मैं
मपता के साथ था उन्हें भी तुमने जेल भेजवा मदया मैं तुम्हारे साथ नहीं
जाउंगा ऐसी मटथमत में न्यायपीठ के मनदेशानुसार डेटेन्यू / मयंक ओझा
को गााँधी सेवा मनकेतन बाल गृह रायबरेली में आवामसत कराया गया,
जो मक वतटमान में टथानान्तररत होकर राजकीय बाल गृह बालक
मोहान रोड लखनऊ में आवामसत है।

चूंमक प्रकरण माता-मपता के मध्य बच्चे की कटटडी
का है, अतैः इसका मनटतारण थाना टथानीय के टतर से सम्भव नहीं
है। प्रकरण में मा० न्यायालय अथवा सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा जो भी
आदेश पाररत मकया जायेगा, उसका अक्षरशैः अनुपालन सुमनमश्चत
मकया जायेगा।

4- प्रटतर-4 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी के मनजी ज्ञान
एवं अमभलेख से संबंमधत है, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं करनी है।

5-प्रटतर-5 में अंमकत कथन पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं
करनी है।

6-प्रटतर में अंमकत कथन प्र०सू०रर० सं०120/2023 अंतगटत धारा 468, 467, 420 आईपीसी थाना
संग्रामपुर जनपद अमेठी से संबंमधत है, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं
करनी है।
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7-प्रटतर-7 में अंमकत कथन के संबंध में यह कहना
है है। मक मु०अ०सं०-120/23 अनागटत धारा 420, 467 व
468 आई.पी.सी. में अमभ० मवपक्षी सं०-7 सूयट प्रकाश ओझा, जो
मक डेटेन्यू का मपता है के जेल चले जाने की मटथमत में में मयंक
/डेटेन्यू मनरामश्रत होने के कारण उसे न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत
जनपद अमेठी के समक्ष पुमलस द्वारा प्रटतुत मकया गया। बालक
/डेटेन्यू मयंक ने अपनी माता शमश के साथ जाने से यह कहते हुए
इन्कार कर मदया मक मुझे तुम 2 साल की उम्र में छोडकर चली गई
थी और मैं मपता के साथ था उन्हें भी तुमने जेल भेजवा मदया मैं
तुम्हारे साथ नहीं जाउंगा ऐसी मटथमत में न्यायपीठ के मनदेशानुसार
डेटेन्यू / मयंक ओझा को गााँधी सेवा मनकेतन बाल गृह रायबरेली में
आवामसत कराया गया, जो मक वतटमान में टथानान्तररत होकर
राजकीय बाल गृह बालक मोहान रोड लखनऊ में आवामसत है।

8- प्रटतर-8 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी के मनजी ज्ञान
एवं अमभलेख से संबंमधत हैं, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं करनी है।

9- प्रटतर-9 में अंमकत कथन के संबंध में यह कहना
है मक मु०अ०सं०-120/23 अन्तगटत धारा 420, 467 व 468
आई.पी.सी. में अमभ०/ मवपक्षी सं०- 7 सूयट प्रकाश ओझा, जो मक
डेटेन्यू का मपता है के जेल चले जाने की मटथमत में मयंक /डेटेन्यू
मनरामश्रत होने के कारण उसे न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत जनपद
अमेठी के समक्ष पुमलस द्वारा प्रटतुत मकया गया। बालक/डेटेन्यू मयंक
ने अपनी माता शमश के साथ जाने से यह कहते हुए इन्कार कर मदया
मक मुझे तुम 2 साल की उम्र में छोडकर चली गई थी और मैं मपता
के साथ था उन्हें भी तुमने जेल भेजवा मदया में तुम्हारे साथ नही
जाउंगा ऐसी मटथमत में न्यायपीठ के मनदेशानुसार डेटेन्यू / मयंक
ओझा को गााँधी सेवा मनकेतन बाल गृह रायबरेली में आवामसत
कराया गया, जो मक वतटमान में टथानान्तररत होकर राजकीय बाल
गृह बालक मोहान रोड लखनऊ में आवामसत है।

10- प्रटतर 10 से 12 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी के मनजी
ज्ञान एवं अमभलेख से संबंमधत है, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं करनी है।

11- प्रटतर-13 में अंमकत कथन न्यायपीठ मजला
बाल ककयाण समममत जनपद् अमेठी द्वारा पाररत आदेश मदनांकत
12.06.2025 से संबंमधत है, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं करनी है।

12- प्रटतर-14 से 19 में अंमकत कथन यामचनी के
मनजी ज्ञान एवं अमभलेख से संबंमधत हैं, मजस पर कोई मटप्पणी नहीं
करनी है।

13- प्रटतर-20 में अंमकत कथन मा० न्यायालय से
संबंमधत हैं। चूंमक प्रकरण माता-मपता के मध्य बच्चे की कटटडी का
है, अतैः इसका मनटतारण थाना टथानीय के टतर से सम्भव नहीं है।
प्रकरण में मा० न्यायालय अथवा सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा जो भी
आदेश पाररत मकया जायेगा, उसका अक्षरशैः अनुपालन सुमनमश्चत
मकया जायेगा।"

15. Learned Additional Government
Advocate has also drawn our attention to
the order dated 12.06.2025 as contained in
Annexure No. 8 to the Writ Petition
whereby The District Child Welfare
Committee, Amethi after taking into
consideration
the
overall
facts
and
circumstances of the case passed a detailed
order keeping in view the welfare of the
minor and his wish/desire and directed the
Superintendent, Rajkiya Bal Griha (Balak),
Mohan Road, Lucknow to get him admitted
in
Dayanand
Bal
Sadan
Awasiya
Vidyalaya, Moti Nagar, Lucknow for his
proper education. For convenience, the
aforesaid order is quoted herein below:

"न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत जनपद अमेठी के
समक्ष मयंक ओझा पुत्र श्री सूयटप्रकाश ओझा उम्र लगभग 10 विट
मन०ग्रा० गैहदा ठेंगडा थाना संग्रामपुर जनपद अमेठी की पत्रावली
प्रटतुत हुई पत्रावली में समटत सभी अमभलेखों का अवलोकन करने
पर ज्ञात हुआ मक मयंक ओझा के माता-मपता के मध्य काफी मदनों
से मववाद चल रहा था और सक्षम न्यायालय के द्वारा मवमधक रूप से
तलाक हो चुका है मयंक के मपता सूयट प्रकाश ओझा मन०ग्रा० पता
उपरोि के द्वारा न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत को प्रेमित पत्र में
मयंक की माता शमश ओझा पुत्री शीतला प्रसाद मतवारी ग्रा०
होलमन मतवारी का पुरवा ब्लाक भेटुआ थाना व जनपद अमेठी का
सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा मवमधक रूप से तलाक हो जाने के पश्चात
वतटमान में दूसरी शादी करके दूसरे पमत एवं बडे बेटे ऋमि ओझा के
साथ हररयाणा में रहने का उकलेख मकया गया है तथा मयंक के मपता
सूयटप्रकाश ओझा को उसकी पूवट पत्नी शमश ओझा के द्वारा
मु०अ०सं० 120/23 अन्तगटत बारा 420,467 व 468
भा०द०सं० में दजट कराकर जेल भेजवाया गया ऐसी मटथमत में मयंक
मनरामश्रत होने के कारण न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत जनपद
अमेठी के समक्ष पुमलस द्वारा प्रटतुत मकया गया बालक मयंक ने
अपनी माता शमश के साथ जानें से यह कहते हुए इन्कार कर मदया
9 All. Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 295
मक मुझे तुम 2 साल की उम्र में छोडकर चली गई थी और में मपता
के साथ था उन्हें भी तुमने जेल भेजवा मदया मैं तुम्हारे साथ नहीं
जाऊाँगा ऐसी मटथमत में न्यायपीठ के मनदेशानुसार मयंक ओझा को
गााँधी सेवा मनकेतन बाल गृह रायबरेली में आवामसत कराया गया
वतटमान में टथानान्तररत होकर राजकीय बाल गृह बालक मोहान रोड
लखनऊ में आवामसत है। मयंक ओझा से कई बार उसके माता-मपता
से वाताट करायी गई मकन्तु मयंक अपने माता-मपता के साथ जाने को
तैयार नही है मयंक के मपता ने भी दूसरी शादी कर ली है एवं माता
शमश ने भी दूसरी शादी कर ली है सौतेली मां अथवा सौतेले मपता
के सामनध्य में बालक मयंक का भमवष्य उज्जवल प्रतीत नहीं हो रहा
है मयंक की मां शमश ओझा ने मजला प्रोबेशन कायाटलय अमेठी के
माध्यम से मयंक ओझा की मशक्षा एवं संरक्षण के सम्बन्ध में पत्र
प्रटतुत मकया है. उि प्रकरण माननीय पाररवाररक न्यायालय से
सम्बमन्धत प्रतीत होता है अतैः मयंक ओझा के संरक्षण से सम्बमन्धत
वाद सक्षम न्यायालय में योमजत कराकर मनटतारण कराना उमचत
प्रतीत होता है। पत्रावली में राजकीय बाल गृह बालक मोहान रोड
लखनऊ के अधीक्षक का पत्र भी संलग्न है मजसमें बालक मयंक को
अच्छी मशक्षा प्रदान कराने हेतु दयानन्द बाल सदन आवासीय
मवद्यालय मोती नगर लखनऊ में मशक्षा मदलाने की इच्छा व्यि की
गई है मजसमें बच्चे का उज्जवल भमवष्य एवं सवोत्तम महत प्रतीत
होता है।

आदेश

अतैः न्यायपीठ बाल ककयाण समममत जनपद अमेठी
सवटसम्ममत से अधीक्षक राजकीय बाल गृह बालक मोहान रोड
लखनऊ को मनदेमशत करती है मक बालक मयंक ओझा की उमचत
मशक्षा हेतु दयानन्द बाल सदन आवासीय मवद्यालय मोती नगर
लखनऊ में प्रवेश मदलाये तथा मयंक के माता शमश एवं मपता सूयट
प्रकाश को मनदेमशत मकया जाता है मक सक्षम न्यायालय में वाद
योमजत करके मयंक के संरक्षण हेतु उमचत आदेश पाररत कराये।"

16. The first and the foremost
contention of the Learned Additional
Government Advocate is that the Writ of
Habeas Corpus is not maintainable against
a judicial order, i.e. an order passed by the
Child
Welfare
Committee
under
the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. He further
submitted that if the detention is pursuant
to judicial orders passed by a Court of
competent jurisdiction or by the Child
Welfare Committee under the Juvenile
Justice Act, the same cannot be treated as
an illegal detention. The grievance, if any,
against such an order may be redressed by
way of challenging the legality, validity
and correctness of the order by filing an
appropriate
proceeding
before
the
competent appellate or revisional forum
under the applicable provisions of law but
the same cannot be reviewed in a petition
seeking writ of habeas corpus.

17. It has been vehemently argued by
Mr. G.D.Bhutt that the aforesaid order
dated 12.06.2025 passed by the District
Child Welfare Committee, Amethi in
exercise of its' power under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act has not been challenged before any
competent forum having jurisdiction nor
the custody of the petitioner corpus has
been sought under the Guardians and
Wards Act or any other law and as such
neither the mother nor the father can be
allowed to seek/procure the relief by
circumventing the statutory remedies by
way of Writ of Habeas Corpus.

18. We have heard the submissions of
the parties present before the Court and
perused the available material. Before
entering into the merits of the case, it
would be apt to consider the issue of
maintainability of the instant Writ of
Habeas Corpus.

19. At this stage it would be
appropriate to go through the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
regarding the Writ of Habeas Corpus, in the
case of Kanu Sanyal versus District
Magistrate,
Darjeeling
and
Others;
reported in (1973) 2 SCC 674. The relevant
part of the same is extracted herein below:

"It will be seen from this brief
history of the writ of habeas corpus that it
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is essentially a procedural writ. It deals
with the machinery of justice, not the
substantive law. The object of the writ is to
secure release of a person who is illegally
restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no
doubt, a command addressed to a person
who is alleged to have another person
unlawfully in his custody requiring him to
bring the body of such person before the
Court, but the production of the body of the
person detained is directed in order that the
circumstances of his detention may be
inquired into, or to put it differently, "in
order
that
appropriate
judgment
be
rendered on judicial enquiry into the
alleged unlawful restraint". The form of the
writ employed is "We command you that
you have in the King's Bench Division of
our High Court of Justice -- immediately
after the receipt of this our writ, the body of
A.B. being taken and detained under your
custody -- together with the day and cause
of his being taken and detained -- to
undergo and receive all and singular such
matters and things as our court shall then
and there consider of concerning him in
this behalf". The italicized words show that
the writ is primarily designed to give a
person restrained of his liberty a speedy
and effective remedy Patna High Court CR.
WJC No.1355 of 2019 dt. 05-03-2020 for
having the legality of his detention
enquired into and determined and if the
detention is found to be unlawful, having
himself discharged and freed from such
restraint. The most characteristic element
of the writ is its peremptoriness and, as
pointed out by Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Cox
v. Hakes (supra), "the essential and leading
theory of the whole procedure is the
immediate determination of the right to the
applicant's freedom" and his release, if the
detention is found to be unlawful. That is
the primary purpose of the writ; that is its
substance and end. ..."

20.
The
question
on
the
maintainability of the habeas corpus
petition with regard to custody of the minor
child came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Tejaswini
Gaude
versus
Shekhar
Jagdish Prasad Tewari reported in (2019)
7 SCC 42, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has been pleased to observe as under: (SCC
p. 54, paras 19-20)

"19. Habeas corpus proceedings
is not to justify or examine the legality of
the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is
a medium through which the custody of the
child is addressed to the discretion of the
Court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ
which is an extraordinary remedy, and the
writ is issued where in the circumstances of
the
particular
case,
ordinary
remedy
provided by the law is either not available
or is ineffective; otherwise, a writ will not
be issued. In child custody matters, the
power of the High Court in granting the
writ is qualified only in cases where the
detention of a minor by a person who is not
entitled to his legal custody. In view of the
pronouncement on the issue in question by
the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in
our view, in child custody matters, the writ
of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is
proved that the detention of a minor child
by a parent or others was illegal and
without any authority of law.

20. In child custody matters, the
ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act or the
Guardians and Wards Act as the case may
be. In cases arising out of the proceedings
under the Guardians and Wards Act, the
jurisdiction of the court is determined by
whether the minor ordinarily resides within
the area on which the court exercises such
jurisdiction.
There
are
significant
9 All. Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 297
differences between the enquiry under the
Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise
of powers by a writ court which is
summary in nature. What is important is
the welfare of the child. In the writ court,
rights are determined only on the basis of
affidavits. Where the court is of the view
that a detailed enquiry is required, the court
may decline to exercise the extraordinary
jurisdiction and direct the parties to
approach the civil court. It is only in
exceptional cases, the rights of the parties
to the custody of the minor will be
determined in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus.

21. The Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Rachna and another versus State
of U.P. and others; reported in AIR 2021
All 109 (FB), while deciding a reference
made by a Division Bench considering
various provisions of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 and the law laid down by various
Courts; has answered as under:

"We accordingly come on our
conclusions in respect of question nos. 1, 2
and 3 for determination as follows: -

Question No. 1: "Whether a writ
of habeas corpus is maintainable against
the judicial order passed by the Magistrate
or by the Child Welfare Committee
appointed under Section 27 of the Act,
sending the victim to Women Protection
Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child
Care Home?"

Answer: "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.
Consequently, such an order passed by the
Magistrate or by the Committee cannot be
challenged/assailed or set aside in a writ of
habeas corpus."

Question
No.
2:
"Whether
detention of a corpus in Women Protection
Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child
Care Home pursuant to an order (may be
improper) can be termed/viewed as an
illegal detention?"

Answer: "An illegal or irregular
exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate or
by the Child Welfare Committee appointed
under Section 27 of the J.J. Act, sending
the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari
Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home
cannot be treated an illegal detention."

Question No. 3: "Under the
Scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the
welfare and safety of child in need of care
and protection is the legal responsibility of
the Board/Child Welfare Committee and as
such, the proposition that even a minor
cannot be sent to Women Protection
Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child
Care Home against his/her wishes is legally
valid or it requires a modified approach in
consonance with the object of the Act ?"

Answer: "Under the J.J. Act, the
welfare and safety of child in need of care
and protection is the legal responsibility of
the Board/Child Welfare Committee and
the
Magistrate/Committee
must
give
credence to her wishes. As per Section 37
of the J.J. Act the Committee, on being
satisfied through the inquiry that the child
before the Committee is a child in need of
care and protection, may, on consideration
of Social Investigation Report submitted by
Child Welfare Officer and taking into
account the child's wishes in case the child
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is sufficiently mature to take a view, pass
one or more of the orders mentioned in
Section 37 (1) (a) to (h)."

22. The Full Bench of this Court, in
the
case
of
Rachna
(supra)
very
categorically observed that writ of habeas
corpus would not be maintainable, if the
detention in custody is pursuant to judicial
orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a
court of competent jurisdiction or by the
'Child Welfare Committee'. Suffice to
indicate that an illegal or irregular exercise
of jurisdiction by the Magistrate passing an
order of remand or by the 'Child Welfare
Committee' under Juvenile Justice Act
cannot be said to be an illegal detention.
The grievance, if any, against such an order
may be redressed by way of challenging the
legality, validity and correctness of the
order by filing an appropriate proceeding
before the competent appellate or revisional
forum under the applicable provisions of
law but the same cannot be reviewed in a
petition seeking writ of habeas corpus.

23. The Hon'ble Full Bench while
deciding the case of Rachna (supra) also took
serious note of the situation where a minor
corpus refuses to go with his / her parents,
then
in
such
situation,
appropriate
arrangements must be made to ensure the
well being of the child. His / her interest
bears paramount importance and before
proceeding to pass order for custody of the
minor, the welfare of the minor must be kept
in mind. The wish of minor and the
wish/desire of girl can always be considered
by the Magistrate concerned/Committee and
as per her wishes/desire further follow up
action is required to be taken in accordance
with law under the Juvenile Justice Act.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nirmala versus Kulwant Singh
and others; reported in (2024) 10 SCC
595, has been pleased to hold that the
habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is
an extraordinary remedy and recourse to
such a remedy should not be permitted
unless the ordinary remedy provided by the
law is either not available or is ineffective.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed
that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down
insofar as the maintainability of a habeas
corpus petition in the matters of custody of
a minor child is concerned. The writ court
should
exercise
its
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or not will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. It
has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that in child custody matters, the
power of the High Court in granting the
writ is qualified only in cases where the
detention of a minor is by a person who is
not entitled to his legal custody. It has
further been held that in child custody
matters, the writ of habeas corpus is
maintainable only where it is proved that
the detention of a minor child by a parent
or others was illegal and without any
authority of law.

25. It is trite in law that writ of habeas
corpus would not be maintainable, if the
detention in custody is pursuant to judicial
orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a
court of competent jurisdiction or by the
Child Welfare Committee. Section 27 of
the Juvenile Justice Act defines the 'Child
Welfare Committee' and provides that the
State Government shall by notification in
the Official Gazette constitute for every
district, one or more Child Welfare
Committees for exercising the powers and
to discharge the duties conferred on such
Committees in relation to 'child in need of
care and protection' under the said Act.
The powers of the Committee are defined
9 All. Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 299
in Section 27(9) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The said provision of the Act makes it clear
that while passing such orders, the
Committee exercises the power of Judicial
Magistrate and functions as a Bench and
shall have the powers conferred by the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) on a Metropolitan Magistrate or, as
the case may be, a Judicial Magistrate of
First Class. The powers, functions and
responsibilities of the Committee are
defined under Section 29 and 30 of the
Juvenile
Justice
Act.
Section
30(vi)
provides that it is the function of the
Committee to ensure care, protection,
proper rehabilitation or restoration of
children in need of care and protection,
based on the child's individual care plan
and passing necessary directions to parents
or guardians or fit persons or children's
homes or fit facility in this regard. It further
provides
for
selection
of
registered
institution for placement of each children
requiring institutional support, based on the
child's age, gender, disability and needs
and keeping in mind the available capacity
of the institution. Further, the term
'Juvenile' has been defined in Section
2(35) of the Juvenile Justice Act to mean a
child below the age of 18 years. The word
'Child' has been defined in Section 2(12)
of the Juvenile Justice Act to mean a
person who has not completed 18 years of.
Age. The meaning of the phrase 'child in
need of care and protection' is defined
under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice
Act.

26. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
provides a complete mechanism dealing
with welfare of the child. The 'Child
Welfare Committee' exercises the power of
Magistrate in view of the provision of
Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
and for all purposes, the Committee acts
like the Magistrate. Once the order has
been passed by the Magistrate, then it can
only be assailed before the appropriate
Court by filing an appeal or any other
remedy as provided under the law.

27. At the cost of repetition, we
reiterate that if the corpus is found a child,
as defined under Section 2(12) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, he/she would
fall in the category of 'child in need of care
and protection' in view of Clauses (iii),
(viii) and (xii) of Sub-section (14) of
Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Hence the order passed by the Child
Welfare Committee placing the corpus in a
protection home would be within its power
conferred under Section 37 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015. Thus, the person
aggrieved by an order passed by the Child
Welfare Committee can file an appeal
under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015. Further, the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 provides the revisional forum
before the High Court wherein the High
Court may, at any time either on its own
motion or an application received in this
behalf, call for the record of any
proceeding in which any Committee or
Board or Children's Court, or court has
passed an order, for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the legality or
propriety of any such order and may pass
such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit.
Therefore, in such a situation, it cannot be
presumed that in case the corpus is in
Children's Home pursuant to an order
passed by the 'Child Welfare Committee';
then the same is neither without jurisdiction
nor illegal or perverse, keeping in mind the
provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015,
the detention of the corpus cannot be said
to be illegal and in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by the order of the 'Child
Welfare Committee', the petitioner is at
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
liberty to take recourse of remedy of
Appeal
or
Revision
provided
under
Sections 101 & 102 of the Juvenile Justice
Act.

28. It would not be out of place to
quote the Para 69 of the judgment passed
by the Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Rachna (supra), which reads as under:

"69. If we look at the relevant
Sections of J.J. Act, the object of the J.J.
Act is pro-child legislation. The J.J. Act
itself provides all remedial measures of
rehabilitation and care to a child who is in
need of care and protection. We attach
equal importance to other Sections of the
J.J. Act. They are emphatic, and in case the
petitioner is aggrieved, and the corpus is
sent to the shelter home arbitrarily, then the
said situation may also be looked into and
examined in the regular appeal or revision.
Section 37 of J.J. Act clearly provides that
the Committee on being satisfied through
the inquiry that the child before the
Committee is a child in need of care and
protection, may, on consideration of Social
Investigation Report submitted by the Child
Welfare Officer and taking into account the
child's wishes in case the child is
sufficiently mature to take a view, pass one
or more of the following orders. The
framers have also consciously taken due
care of child's wishes in case the child is
sufficiently mature to take a view.