Allahabad High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition in Child Custody Case
Court Upholds Child Welfare Committee's Order, Emphasizes Welfare of the Child
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed for the custody of minor Mayank Ojha, reinforcing the legal principle that a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable when a minor's custody is pursuant to a judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi emphasized that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters. The petitioner, Mayank Ojha's mother, sought the release of her son from what she claimed to be illegal detention by the Child Welfare Committee. However, the court noted that the custody was a result of a judicial order, thus making the habeas corpus petition untenable.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that Mayank was residing at the Dayanand Bal Sadan, a child care institution in Lucknow, under the orders of the Child Welfare Committee. The court observed that the child was receiving appropriate care, education, and was participating in extracurricular activities, which contributed positively to his development.
The court underscored the procedural aspect of habeas corpus, citing the Supreme Court's judgments which clarify that the writ is not a tool to challenge judicial orders. The proper remedy, the court stated, lies in filing an appeal or revision under the Juvenile Justice Act or seeking custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
The judgment cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Tejaswini Gaude v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, which restricts the issuance of habeas corpus in child custody matters to situations where the detention is illegal and without authority.
The court also addressed the strained relations between Mayank's parents, noting that the mother had previously lodged criminal charges against the father, leading to his incarceration. In light of these circumstances, the Child Welfare Committee's decision to place Mayank in a child care institution was deemed appropriate, considering his welfare and expressed wishes.
Finally, the court granted liberty to Mayank's father to file for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, and allowed for monitored visitation rights at the child care institution, thereby ensuring the child's best interests remain the focal point of any future legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor child is not maintainable if the custody is pursuant to an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The welfare of the child is paramount, and statutory remedies under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 or Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 must be pursued instead.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, Article 226; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 37, 101, 102; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Mayank Ojha (Minor) v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2790202
