AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
The alleged detenue is the daughter of the petitioner and has been placed in a safe home by Ext.P1 order, due to the girl having been subjected to a sexual offence and subsequent threats have been leveled against her by the accused. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is competent to protect the child from further abuse as also from any threats leveled. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, Ext.P1 is passed without jurisdiction.
We are of the opinion that these are grounds which can be urged in an appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015, under which enactment, the order is passed. We are also of the opinion that there can be no illegal detention alleged to maintain a Habeas Corpus petition. However, the petitioner would be entitled to take appropriate proceedings for appeal, the remedy of which is left open, and the appellate authority would also consider the question of jurisdiction as urged by the petitioner.
The writ petition is closed with the above reservation, but with no observation on merits or the question of jurisdiction.