A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the detention is the result of a judicial order passed by a competent authority or committee exercising judicial functions and effective appellate or revisional remedies are provided by the governing law.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the corpus, Deeksha, is the wife of Arvind Kumar and is in illegal custody of the State, being kept in a Rajkiya Bal Grah (Balika), Vrindavan, Mathura against her wishes. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the husband of the corpus, is entitled to her lawful custody.

2. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, who allegedly solemnized marriage with the corpus while she was a minor, and, as such, she has been lawfully detained in Rajkiya Bal Grah (Balika), Vrindavan, Mathura. It is submitted that since the corpus is in lawful custody of the State in pursuance of a judicial order, the present habeas corpus petition is not maintainable.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rachna and Another vs. State of UP and Others 2021 SCC OnLine All 211, held as under:-

"80. We accordingly come on our conclusions in respect of question nos. 1, 2 and 3 for determination as follows:—

Question No. 1:"(1) Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable against the judicial order passed by the Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Section 27 of the Act, sending the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home?;

Answer : If the petitioner corpus is in custody as per judicial orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a Court of Competent Jurisdiction or a Child Welfare Committee under the J.J. Act. Consequently, such an order passed by the Magistrate or by the Committee cannot be challenged/assailed or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus.

Question No. 2:"Whether detention of a corpus in Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home pursuant to an order (may be improper) can be termed/viewed as an illegal detention?"

Answer : An illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Section 27 of the J.J. Act, sending the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home cannot be treated an illegal detention.

Question No. 3:"Under the Scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the welfare and safety of child in need of care and protection is the legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee and as such, the proposition that even a minor cannot be sent to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home against his/her wishes is legally valid or it requires a modified approach in consonance with the object of the Act?"

Answer : Under the J.J. Act, the welfare and safety of child in need of care and protection is the legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee and the Magistrate/Committee must give credence to her wishes. As per Section 37 of the J.J. Act the Committee, on being satisfied through the inquiry that the child before the Committee is a child in need of care and protection, may, on consideration of Social Investigation Report submitted by Child Welfare Officer and taking into account the child's wishes in case the child is sufficiently mature to take a view, pass one or more of the orders mentioned in Section 37 (1) (a) to (h)."

(emphasis supplied)

5. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jayanti and Another vs. State of UP and others 2021 SCC OnLine All 760, held as under:-

"26. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the legal position which emerges is that in a case where the custody of the petitioner corpus as been hande