Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2401 Court No. - 14 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 385 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kumkum Yadav Thru.Her Next Friend Chandan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present haheas corpus petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and after knowing her wishes set her at liberty or allow to go with the petitioner in the interest of justice. 3. During the course of deliberations, learned A.G.A. has placed before this Court written instructions submitted by the concerned police station enclosing therewith an application given by the alleged detenue - Kumkum Yadav and also a copy of the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Barabanki of date 12.07.2024, whereby the custody of the alleged detenue has been given to her father. 4. During the course of deliberations, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of the alleged detenue was solemnized with some other person against her wishes and she has given her statement to this effect before magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has admitted that she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and thus it is the petitioner, who is entitled for her custody. 5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that a remedy lies to file a revision against the order of the Child Welfar Committee, Barabanki. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 2015), it is evident that in Section 2, sub section 22 of the Act, 2015, the Committee has been defined as under: "(22) "Committee" means Child Welfare Committee constituted under section 27;" 7. Chapter V of the Act, 2015 defines the obligation, power and duties of the Child Welfare Committees and Section 102 of the Act, 2015 provides the remedy of revision in the following words: "102. Revision - The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on 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: Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 8. The above placed provisions would sufficiently demonstrate that if a person is aggrieved by any order of the Child Welfare Committee, he may challenge the same by filing a revision as provided under Section 102 of the Act, 2015. 9. It is also evident that in the instant case, custody of the alleged detenue has been given to her father - Raj Kumar Yadav under the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Barabanki, therefore, a remedy lies in challenging that order before appropriate forum under Section 102 of the Act, 2015 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the custody of any person given to a person by a judicial order could not be deemed to be an illegal detention. 10. Thus in view of above provisions mentioned herein-before, instant petition appears to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such. 11. Mere dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner/next friend to avail any remedy available under the law or to file a revision under Section 102 of the Act, 2015. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Anupam S/- Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench