K. C. BHARGAVA, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner prays that she should be set at liberty to live wherever she likes. It is further prayed that the order dated 6/7/1992 be quashed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Sumangala Seema has filed this petition though her friend Sushil Kumar. According to the facts as disclosed in the writ petition a first information report was lodged by one Ram Chandra, father of the petitioner Sumangala, in the year 1992 at police station Saadatganj, lucked to the effect that his daughter Kumari Sumangaia was missing. A copy of that F. I. R. is annexure - 1. This resulted in a case being registered as crime No. 87 of 1992 under section 363/366 I. P. C. Sushil Kumar who is the next friend of the petitioner in the present case was arrested but thereafter was released on bail. Kumari Sumangala was taken into custody on 21/5/1992 and she was thereafter medically examined. The medical examination report revealed that her age was between 18 and 19 years. Kumari Sumangala was produced before the court of IVth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Lucknow for recording her Statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. on 25/5/1992 but her statement could not be recorded that day but was recorded on 27/5/1992, by with additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, a copy of which is annexure - 5 to this writ petition. Kumari Sumangala was sent to protective home. Ram Chandra, father of the petitioner moved in application for her custody and the same was allowed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 6/7/1992, a copy of which is annexure, 6. Kumari Sumangala also moved an application before the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 16/6/1992 to the effect that she wants to live with Sushil Kumar, a copy of which is annexure-7 to the writ petition. An application was also moved Sushi Kumar on 18/6/1992 to the, effect that the petitioner may be given in his custody a copy of which is annexure-2. The IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order directing the custody of the petitioner to be given to her father. This order was passed without the consent of the petitioner. An application was also moved Sushi Kumar on 18/6/1992 to the, effect that the petitioner may be given in his custody a copy of which is annexure-2. The IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order directing the custody of the petitioner to be given to her father. This order was passed without the consent of the petitioner. ( 3 ) A revision was filed against this order by Sushil Kumar on 6/7/1992 and the operation of the orders of the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was stayed, but later on this stay order was vacated. During the pendency of the revision on 11/7/1992 the deponent, Sushil Kumar heard the voice of shouting of Kumari Sumangala. She was shouting, MUJHKO MAT MARO, which shows that the life of Kumari Sumangala is in danger. She is being confined at the place of opposite party no. 3 without her consent and she cannot be detained at any place without her consent. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is opposed. In the counter offidavit filed by Ram Chandra, opposite party No. 3, it is alleged that in the criminal case which was lodged against Sushil Kumar a non bailable warrant of arrest was issued and process under section 32133 Cr. P. C. was also issued against him. The prosecution in collusion with Sushil Kumar Verma got the medical examination report. The age of petitioner is between 15 to 16 years which is entered in the register of Mahila Hospital, Lucknow. The same has been forged at the instance of the accused as 18-19 years. The Statement of Kumari Sumangala is alleged to be a manufactured document as the same is not recorded in presence of any of the party. The opposite party applied for custody of his daughter and in support of the age he filed a true copy of transfer certificate of school in which the date of birth of Kumari Sumangala is stated 4/3/1978. After the perusal of the documents the application of the opposite party No. 3 was allowed and Kumari Slimangala was given in his custody. Kumari Sumangala was detained in the Han Sanrakshan Grih and if any application would have been written by her then it had to be forwarded by the authorities of the Han Sanrakshan Grih. It appears that this application has been forged by Sushil Kumar Verma. The order of the Magistrate dated 6. 7. Kumari Sumangala was detained in the Han Sanrakshan Grih and if any application would have been written by her then it had to be forwarded by the authorities of the Han Sanrakshan Grih. It appears that this application has been forged by Sushil Kumar Verma. The order of the Magistrate dated 6. 7. 1992 does not suffer from any illegality and cannot be quashed. It is further alleged by the opposite party No. 3 that his petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has availed the alternative remedy by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge which is still pending. It is further alleged that Kumari Sumangala is happily living with her parents and it cannot be said that she is being confined by her parents and the order of the lower court cannot be said to be an illegal order. Sushil Kumar Verma had no locus standi to file the present writ petition because he is not a friend of Kumari Sumangala. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that Sushil Kumar who has availed the alternative remedy by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge could not maintain this writ petition. Secondly on the ground that there is no illegal detention and the order of the Magistrate cannot be quashed in this petition. ( 6 ) IT is admitted in the writ petition itself that against the order of the learned Magistrate Sushil Kumar has filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. That revision was pending at the time of the filing of the writ petition. Now it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said revision has been got dismissed and as such this writ petition is maintainable. It may be stated here that when Sushil Kumar had availed an alternative remedy by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge, he could have filed the present writ petition. The fact that the revision has been got dismissed is of no consequence. In the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of UP and Ors. a Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to go into such a question where an alternative remedy has already been availed. The fact that the revision has been got dismissed is of no consequence. In the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of UP and Ors. a Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to go into such a question where an alternative remedy has already been availed. In para 55 it was observed that Tif a person seeks one of the alternative remedies he will be precluded from seeking the other remedy. Therefore, in view of the fact that an alternative remedy had already been sought by the petitioner this writ petition does not lie. It is immaterial whether the petitioner withdrew the revision or not. ( 7 ) THE next objection raised against the maintainability of the petition is that the custody is not it legal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a wrong order has been passed by the lower court which is the result of the abuse of the process of court. Had this been so then certainly this court would have jurisdiction to set (aside that order. Accordingly to the learned counsel for the petitioner the girl does not wish to live with of Either and the Magistrate and no jurisdiction to order her custody to be given to her father. After filing a writ of Habeas Corpus it is desirable that the detention of the petitioner should be declared illegal. In the present case the Magistrate has passed a detailed order giving reasons for handing over the custody of the petitioner to her father. He has also considered the statement of the petitioner. A copy of this order in annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Magistrate has also considered the facts with regard to the age of Kumari Sumfilemangala. After discussing all these facts he has J come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a minor and her custody should be given to her father. As this order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the facts of the case it cannot be said that the petitioner is in illegal custody of her father. The custody of the girl was given to the father in pursuance of the order passed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lucknow on 6. 7. 1992. As the custody cannot be said to be illegal in the present case, no writ petition of this nature can be filed against this order. The custody of the girl was given to the father in pursuance of the order passed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lucknow on 6. 7. 1992. As the custody cannot be said to be illegal in the present case, no writ petition of this nature can be filed against this order. This view has also been taken in the case of Subbarathhammal Petitioner v. Seshachalam Najdu. In that case also it was held that the procedure by way of habeas corpus cannot be utilized for the purpose of going behind the order; passed by a competent court having jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of this fact also this petition is not maintainable. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, in view of what has been said above this writ petition of habeas corpus is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed as not maintainable. .