Custody Of Minor Placed Under Child Welfare Committee's Order Can't Be Challenged In Habeas Corpus Plea: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the custody of a minor child has been handed over pursuant to a judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed thus while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her 11-year-old son claiming that she is her natural guardian. The plea sought directions to produce the child before the Court and to hand over his custody to the petitioner, claiming he was being held at a children's home unlawfully by the opposite parties. Pursuant to the Court's order, the child was produced before the Bench wherein it was informed that the boy/corpus was presently residing at a children's home in Lucknow and studying in a reputed school where he was performing well. The Bench interacted with the child, who, it said, appeared “a normal, sharp and healthy-minded boy with commendable ability to understand and answer queries”. When asked whether he wished to live with his mother, the child categorically refused as he said that she had left him when he was only two years old. He also expressed reluctance to live with his father (respondent no. 7). Instead, he indicated his wish to continue his stay at the children's home where he claimed was happy and well cared for. In its 17-page order, the Court recorded that the father had earlier tried to meet the boy by introducing a lady companion as his mother, which the Child Home staff discovered to be false. The father admitted this before the Court and stated that he wished to live with his son and would take proper care of him. The AGA, relying on the record and reports from the Child Welfare Committee, Amethi, submitted that since the boy's parents were estranged and the mother had lodged an FIR against the father and in the said FIR, the father also suffered imprisonment for some time. Due to this fact and considering the reluctance of the child to stay with the mother, the CWC by order dated June 12, 2025 placed the child at the children's home for his welfare and education. The AGA argued that the detention of the corpus was pursuant to a judicial order of the Child Welfare Committee passed under JJ Act, and therefore the same could not be treated as illegal detention. He further submitted that any grievance against such an order has to be pursued through statutory remedies such as appeal or revision under Sections 101 and 102 of the Act, not through a writ of habeas corpus. Agreeing with the State's submission, the Bench observed that when a minor's custody arises from a judicial order of a competent authority such as a Magistrate or a Child Welfare Committee, the same cannot be reviewed in habeas corpus proceedings. The Bench held: "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". In this regard, the bench referred to the Full Bench Judgment of the HC in the case of Rachna and another versus State of U.P. and others 2021, wherein it was 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'. The Court also noted that the Juvenile Justice Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children. Since the CWC exercises powers equivalent to a Judicial Magistrate under Section 27 of the Act, its orders are judicial in nature and appealable, the Court added. The Bench also said that issues of custody between parents must be determined under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where a detailed inquiry into the welfare and preference of the child can be undertaken. Consequently, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that no case for extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out. However, before parting, the Court granted liberty to the father to file an appropriate application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for custody or visitation rights. The Bench directed that, pending such proceedings, the father may be permitted to visit the child at Dayanand Bal Sadan once a month for three hours, subject to prior permission and supervision by the competent authorities.Case title - Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru. Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And 6 OthersCase citation : Click Here To Read/Download Order

Custody Of Minor Placed Under Child Welfare Committee's Order Can't Be Challenged In Habeas Corpus Plea: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags