Custody Ordered by Child Welfare Committee Cannot Be Challenged Through Habeas Corpus: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench recently dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a mother seeking custody of her 11-year-old son, observing that the boy was lawfully under the care of a state-run child home as per the order of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Amethi.

A division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi was hearing a petition filed by a woman, who sought the release of her son from what she termed as “illegal custody” of government authorities. The child had been staying at Dayanand Bal Sadan, Moti Nagar, Lucknow, following an order by the CWC passed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

There was a marital dispute between the child’s parents whose marriage was legally dissolved years ago. Court noted that both parents had since remarried and were living separately, the mother in Haryana with her second husband and son, and the father in Faridabad, where he works as a quality supervisor.

The father had previously been sent to jail after his ex-wife filed an FIR against him under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the IPC. During his incarceration, the minor was left without care and was later declared a “child in need of care and protection” by the CWC, which placed him in a state facility for his safety and education.

When produced before the High Court, the child, appearing calm and articulate, categorically refused to go with his mother. The child told the judges that he does not like his mother as she had left him while he was just two years old baby. He added that he preferred to remain at Dayanand Bal Sadan, where he felt happy and well cared for. Court was informed that the child was studying in a reputed school and performing well academically.

The bench took note of the CWC’s detailed order dated June 12, 2025, which had directed that the child to continue his education at Dayanand Bal Sadan, emphasizing his own preference and overall welfare. Citing judgments from the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of the High Court in Rachna v. State of U.P. (2021), the judges held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued against judicial orders passed by competent authorities such as the CWC.

"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," court said.

Court observed that if either parent is aggrieved, they must challenge the CWC’s decision before an appellate or revisional forum under the Juvenile Justice Act or seek custody through proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Dismissing the mother’s plea, the court directed that the child be safely escorted back to the children’s home. However, acknowledging the father’s concern for his son’s welfare, the bench allowed him to file for custody before a competent court and granted him limited visitation rights. He may meet the child once a month for three hours within the premises of Dayanand Bal Sadan under supervision.

Case Title: Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru. Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi vs. State of UP and 6 Others

Bench: Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi