JUDGMENT

B.K. NAYAK, J. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Cuttack (opp.party no.1) in Case No.607 of 2012 restoring the female child, namely, “Kandhei” to opposite party no.3, who is said to be the biological mother of the child.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to the passing of the impugned order as averred in the writ petition, are as follows :

The two petitioners are mother and daughter respectively. On 08.09.2011 between 1.00 P.M. and 2.00 P.M. while the petitioners were in the premises of Kakatpur Mangala Temple, among others one Saudamini Giri of village-Kerendiapal, P.S.Kakatpur was also present inside the temple waiting for “Darshan”. At that time, a young woman with a minor female child aged about eight months, said to have come from Kendrapara area who was also present inside the Mangala Temple, left the said female child with Saudamini Giri asking her to keep the child for a moment as the said lady wanted to go out to answer call of nature. On humanitarian ground Saudamini Giri held the child awaiting for return of the said lady. The lady however did not return for hours and a search for the lady made by Saudamini Giri and others produced no result. Saudamini Giri ultimately brought the matter to the notice of petitioner no.1, who took custody of the child. On that very day at about 5.00 P.M., the matter was reported at Kakatpur Police Station where Station Diary Entry No.155 dated 08.09.2011 was made to that effect for future reference. The matter was also widely published in the print media at that time. The petitioners named the child as ‘Kandhei’ and took care of her and brought her up with utmost love and affection as if the child was their own. It is alleged by the petitioners that on 13.09.2012 the S.D.P.O., Nimapara called the petitioners to the Police Station and under threat asked them to return “Kandhei” to opposite party no.3-Pinki Swain @ Padmini Swain. The police forcibly took away the child from the petitioners and gave her to opposite party no.3 and also forcibly took signatures of the petitioners on some papers stating that the State Human Rights Commission has directed to restore the child to opposite party no.3. Opp.party no.3 in her petition before the State Human Rights Commission stated that she had visited Mangala Temple with her husband-Jagannath Swain and the child in question, who was then aged about 8 months, but her husband chalked out a plan to kill them on the way and therefore in order to save her life as well as the life of the child she left the child with Saudamini Giri and fled away from the clutches of her husband, and thereafter, she became mentally imbalanced and her husband ultimately deserted her. In the meantime, as it transpires, that getting information about the abandonment of the child, the Puri Child Welfare Committee constituted under Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) took cognizance of the matter, conducted a preliminary enquiry and ultimately vide their letter dated 23.09.2012 (Annexure-3) directed the Inspector-in-charge of Kakatpur Police Station to produce the child, “Kandhei” before the Child Welfare Committee, Cuttack for her care, protection, treatment and social integration. The Child Welfare Committee, Puri presumed that since Pinki Swain @ Padmini Swain had abandoned the child for about one year, the care, protection, treatment and social integration of the child could not be properly carried out by Pinki Swain @ Padmini Swain(opposite party no.3). In pursuance of such direction the child was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Cuttack, who transferred the child to Childrens’ Home, Basundhara. Thereafter, the Child Welfare Committee, Cuttack conducted an enquiry and having come to the prima facie finding that Pinki Swain @ Padmini Swain is the biological mother of the child, di