JUDGMENT :

1. In view of the provisions of Section 228-A of Indian Penal Code and the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Shankar alias Baba Vishwakarma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 9 SCC 689 the victim herein after referred to as ‘X’.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri S.K. Pal, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri Anirudh Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 24.1.2022 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj whereby the victim 'x' was directed to be kept in Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, the second revisionist, who is the mother of the victim has approached this Court by filing this criminal revision for setting aside the aforesaid order and also for handing over the custody of 'X' to her.

4. The facts that formed the bedrock of this revision are that on 27.11.2021, second revisionist, who is the mother of 'X' lodged the FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in respect of missing of her daughter. During investigation, victim was recovered on 16.1.2022 from Patiyali Railway Station, Kasganj and she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj where her statement was recorded on 22.1.2022 in which she has expressed her desire to go with her mother and also refused for her medical examination, but the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj vide impugned order dated 24.1.2022 instead of giving the custody of the victim ‘X’ to her mother, has sent her to Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur.

5. Second revisionist has filed an application before the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj stating therein that she is the mother of the victim. The victim is minor aged 15 years and she is unable to understand her pros and cons and that she may be given in her custody. During her counselling by the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj, the victim has expressed her desire to go with her mother.

6. However, the Child welfare Committee, Kasganj vide order dated 24.1.2022 has directed the victim to be kept in Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur on the ground that the mother of the victim is living in Delhi to earn her livelihood and the victim is living with her maternal uncle and in the circumstances proper care of the victim can be taken in her house.

7. Vide order dated 07.7.2022, second revisionist was directed to appear before this Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate was also directed to ensure the presence of revisionist ‘X’, the victim before this Court.

8. Pursuant to the order of this Court second revisionist is present before this Court.

9. Victim 'X' has also been produced before this Court by Head Constable 75 Vikas Yadav P.N.N 062910040 and Lady Constable 20, Sapna Kumari P.N.N. No. 212911109 of police station Patiyali, Kasganj. Personal affidavit of Shri B.B.G.T Murthy, presently posted as Superintendent of Police, Kasganj has been filed, which is taken on record.

10. On query by this Court, the victim has expressed her desire to go with her mother. Mother of the victim is also willing to keep the victim with her.

11. The only question for consideration before this Court is whether a victim can be kept in a protective home against her wishes.

12. This issue has time and again been considered and settled by this Court in catena of judgements.

13. In Kalyani Chowdhary Vs. State of U.P., 1978 Cr.L.J. 1003, a Division Bench of this Court has held that no person can be kept in the protective home unless she is required to be kept there either in pursuance of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic and Women and Girls Act, or under some other law permitting her detention in such a home. It is admitted that the case does not fall under this Act, no other law has been referred to. In such cases, the question of minority is irrelevant as even a minor cannot be detained against her will or at the will of her father in a Protective Home.

14. In Pushpa Devi alias Raj