JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition with the averments that he is the father of alleged detenue-Ku. Atro, aged about 10 years and that he had lodged a written report dated 16th July, 1997 at Police Station-Saipau District Dholpur against four persons whereupon Crime No. 156/97 for the offences under sections 363, 342 and 365 IPC was registered. During investigation Km. Atro was recovered from the custody of respondent No. 3-Smt. Rajan and her statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) Cum-Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Dholpur. 3. Petitioner-Sukhi Ram filed an application for the Superadgi of his daughter-Km. Atro before the Civil Judge (JD)-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur. Respondent No. 3-Smt. Rajan, who is the real elder sister and daughter of the petitioner also filed an application before the said Magistrate alleging that her father and step-mother want to sell her younger sister-Ku. Atro, that a false report has been lodged by them in the police station and that custody of her sister-Km. Atro be given to her. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 31.7.97, taking into consideration the statement of Km. Atro recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the facts and circumstances of the case as also the opinion of the doctor, who had opined that Km. Atro's age was about 14 years, held that it will be in the welfare of Km. Atro if she is given in Superadgi to her elder sister-respondent Smt. Rajan. He, accordingly, rejected petitioner's application and allowed the application filed by Smt Rajan and ordered that Km. Atro be given in her Superadgi. 4. Thus, it is abundantly apparent that the custody of Km. Atro has been given to Smt. Rajan by order dated 31.7.97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not challenged the said order dated 31.7.97 either by filing a revision petition or a petition uis. 482 Cr.P.C. Until and unless the said order is set aside, quashed or modified, it cannot be held that the liberty of Km. Atro has been illegally curtailed or that she has been confined. or detained in illegal or unlawful custody or that her fundamental rights under Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India have been offended/violated. In such,'. circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petition is misconceived. Atro has been illegally curtailed or that she has been confined. or detained in illegal or unlawful custody or that her fundamental rights under Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India have been offended/violated. In such,'. circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petition is misconceived. The petitioner should seek his remedy either by filing a revision petition or a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. 5. With these observations, this Habeas Corpus petition stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******