AND WRIT PETITION NO.15079 OF 2025 Ms. Meghana Addla Suneel, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

This is the third occasion when learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks time to make her arguments.

2. We are however of the firm view that the Writ Petition for issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. The reasons for this view are as follows:

3. First, admittedly, the alleged detenu/child is presently with the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Sishu Griha in Hyderabad. Therefore, there cannot be any question of any illegal detention of the alleged detenu.

4. Second, the petitioners have not been able to establish their right in seeking production of the child. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claim to have adopted the child from the petitioner No.3 by way of a Deed of Adoption dated 30.04.2024. The Deed of Adoption is an unregistered document. The Deed of Adoption has admittedly been executed in violation of the norms laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the 2015 Act). It is undisputed that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 did not adopt the alleged detenu through the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA). There is also no mention of the CWC being involved in the process. Notably, the averments made in the Writ Petition with regard to the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners purchasing the child from the third petitioner are also contrary to the statement made by the petitioner No.1 in the panchanama where the petitioner No.1 mentioned one “Vijayalaxmi” who apparently sold the alleged detenu to petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

5. It is also undisputed that the Writ Petition does not state the correct facts with regard to the biological mother of the alleged detenu.

In fact, there is a complete contradiction on this issue.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on Anokha Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.,, (2004) 1 SCC 382 for the proposition that the 2015 Act, will not apply in certain situations including where biological mother seeks to give the child in adoption to a family friend. We however find that the decision was pronounced in the background of the application made under The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and nor a Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus. Hence, the decision cited is wholly different on the factual conspectus compared to the case before us. We however rely on the first reason for dismissing the Writ

Petition i.e., the petitioners cannot claim an illegal detention of anybody, specially where the alleged detenu is in the safe custody of the Child Welfare Committee, which is within the statutory framework of the 2015 Act.

7. We accordingly find no merit whatsoever in the Writ Petition.

8. W.P.No.15079 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) which is to be paid to Mathru Abhaya Foundation (Girls), Address: 7-80, Vishwam Vihar Colony, Kamala Nagar, Mandal: Medipally, District: Medchal-500098, within seven days from the date.

All connected applications are disposed of.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 12.06.2025 PLV AND WRIT PETITION NO.15079 OF 2025

12.06.2025 PLV