# Smt. Deeksha & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1620
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-22
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 442 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-deeksha-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54380
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be
fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate
court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the
main matter had been negatived." (emphasis supplied)

25. On the touchstone of the dictum noted above, the review is permissible only when there is
error apparent on the face of record i. e. error should be grave and palpable, and the error must be
such as would be apparent on mere looking of record, without requiring any long drawn process of
reasoning, and reappraisal of entire evidence for finding the error, as the same would amount to
exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order
47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence
discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage
though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any
other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned
in the said provision of C.P.C.

26. Perusal of judgment under review passed by us shows that each and every aspect of the
matter has been considered and thereafter, the writ petition in question was disposed of and there
appears no apparent mistake in the judgment under review. Neither review court can examine the
merits of the judgment as an appellate court nor in the garb of review petition, a re-hearing of the
matter can be permitted by this Court.

27. Consequently, the review application is rejected.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1620
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 442 of 2026

Smt. Deeksha & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the corpus is in lawful custody of the State in pursuance of a judicial order and whether the present
habeas corpus petition is not maintainable.
4 All. Smt. Deeksha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1621
Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus); The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015- Section 27(9)- 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.

Held- The corpus is in lawful custody of the State pursuant to judicial order passed by the Child Welfare
Committee, Sambhal on 18.12.2025 under Section 27(9) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, the instant habeas corpus petition is not legally maintainable.
Petition dismissed. (E-15)
(Para 6 & 8)
Case Law Cited
Rachna and Another vs. State of UP and Others 2021 SCC OnLine All 211; Jayanti and Another vs. State of UP
and others 2021 SCC OnLine All 760; Mayank Ojha (Minor) vs. State of UP Thru. Home Secretary Lko. and
others 2025 SCC OnLine All 6064; Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh and Others (2024) 10 SCC 595

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

List of Keywords
Habeas Corpus; Not maintainable Judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee; Under Section 27(9)
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015;

Case Arising From
The corpus is the wife of the petitioner and is in illegal custody of the State, being kept in a Rajkiya Bal Grah
(Balika), Vrindavan, Mathura against her wishes. The petitioner, being the husband of the corpus, is entitled
to her lawful custody.
Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Maohammd Nadeem
 Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the corpus, Deeksha, is the wife of Arvind
Kumar and is in illegal custody of the State, being kept in a Rajkiya Bal Grah (Balika), Vrindavan,
Mathura against her wishes. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the husband of the corpus, is
entitled to her lawful custody.

2. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner,
who allegedly solemnized marriage with the corpus while she was a minor, and, as such, she has
been lawfully detained in Rajkiya Bal Grah (Balika), Vrindavan, Mathura. It is submitted that since
the corpus is in lawful custody of the State in pursuance of a judicial order, the present habeas
corpus petition is not maintainable.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
1622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rachna and Another vs. State of UP and Others
2021 SCC OnLine All 211, held as under:-

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

Question No. 1:"(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 is sufficiently mature to take a
view, pass one or more of the orders mentioned in Section 37 (1) (a) to (h)." (emphasis supplied)

5. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jayanti and Another vs. State of
UP and others 2021 SCC OnLine All 760, held as under:-

"26. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the legal position which emerges is that
in a case where the custody of the petitioner corpus as been handed over as per a judicial order
passed by Judicial Magistrate or a court of competent jurisdiction or a CWC constituted under the
JJ Act, the said order cannot be assailed in a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus."

6. A Division Bench of this Court again in the case of Mayank Ojha (Minor) vs. State of UP
Thru. Home Secretary Lko. and others 2025 SCC OnLine All 6064, held as under:-
4 All. Smt. Deeksha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1623

"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
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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 liberty to take recourse of remedy of Appeal or Revision provided under Sections 101 &
102 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

28.***
1624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. 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.
Moreover, the order passed by the Committee is appealable. Thus, the instant Habeas Corpus Petition being
not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.

30.***

31. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the legal position which emerges is that in a case
where the custody of the petitioner corpus has been handed over as per the order passed by the 'Child
Welfare Committee', constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the said order cannot be assailed in
a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus." (emphasis supplied)

7. The Apex Court in the case of Nirmala vs. Kulwant Singh and Others (2024) 10 SCC 595, held that
in matters of child custody, a writ of habeas corpus would ordinarily not be maintainable when an efficacious
alternative remedy is available. Such a writ would lie only where the detention of the child is illegal,
unauthorized, and contrary to the welfare and best interests of the child. The relevant extract is reproduced as
under:

"23. It can thus be seen that this Court in Tejaswini Gaud case [Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar
Jagdish Prasad Tewari, (2019) 7 SCC 42 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 433] has held that the habeas corpus is a
prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy. It has been held that recourse to such a remedy should
not be permitted unless the ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective. It
has been held 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 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 where it is
proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of
law." (emphasis supplied)

8. It is apparent that, as the corpus is in lawful custody of the State pursuant to judicial order passed by
the Child Welfare Committee, Sambhal on 18.12.2025 under Section 27(9) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the instant habeas corpus petition is not legally maintainable.

9. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1624
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 58564 of 2009

Jamuna Prasad Nigam & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents