Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This Petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed to produce the Baby Gayathiri, the petitioners adopted daughter, aged about one year (approximately ten months) and to set her at liberty. 2. According to the petitioners, the detenue Baby Gayathiri was adopted by a valid Adoption Deed from her biological parents on 7. 2009; copy of the said Adoption Deed has also been produced in the typed set of papers filed along with the Habeas Corpus Petition. It is stated that the name of the biological parents of the Baby Gayathiri is T.Balasundaram and B.Vijaya, who are also present in Court in support of the stand taken by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Administrator of Balamandir Child Trust, Kamaraj Trust, No.8/126, G.N.Chetty Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, submitted that the third respondent is a Trust, which takes care of children and protects them; that the detenue-child is not in their illegal custody; that on 7. 2009, the third respondent received an order bearing C.W.C. CaseNo.157 of 2009, dated 7. 2009, from the Child Welfare Committee (for short, the CWC) constituted under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short, the JJ Act), by which the third respondent was entrusted with the custody and care of the minor child Gayathiri alias Nandhini (the detenue child), aged about ten months and that as per the direction of the CWC, the child was produced before the CWC on 17. 2009 and is due to be produced tomorrow (37. 2009). 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that a complaint was received by the second respondent-Inspector of Police, Velachery Police Station, Chennai from Chennai Child Line-1098 and they sought help regarding the alleged sale of the Baby Gayathiri and in the said complaint/application dated 7. 2009, it was complained that the alleged sale of the Baby Gayathiri, was made by her biological parents at Nagapattinam to the agents, namely Mr.James and Ms.Fathima and subsequently, they handed over the child to Mr.Shankar, the first petitioner herein. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the submissions. 6. 2009, it was complained that the alleged sale of the Baby Gayathiri, was made by her biological parents at Nagapattinam to the agents, namely Mr.James and Ms.Fathima and subsequently, they handed over the child to Mr.Shankar, the first petitioner herein. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the submissions. 6. It appears that the detenue-child is in the custody of the third respondent in view of the order passed by the CWC constituted under the JJ Act, before which the child is again to be produced tomorrow (37. 2009). It is informed that the petitioners have already appeared before the CWC. 7. In the present case, the following questions have to be noticed: .(i) Whether the petitioners validly adopted the detenue-child or not; and .(ii) Whether the so-called adoption which was made on 7. 2009, was actually made only after the complaint was lodged before the Police on 7. 2009, while on 7. 2009, an order was also passed by the CWC to scuttle the proceedings. These two questions of facts cannot be determined by this Court under this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioners should pursue the matter before the CWC. In such a case, if the CWC finds that the detenue-child-Gayathiri @ Nandhini was adopted in accordance with law, by the petitioners, then the CWC may hand over the custody of the detenue-child to the petitioners. On the other hand, if it is found that there is no valid adoption made by the petitioners, then the CWC will pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act, after notice and hearing the complainant, Child Line, the respondents herein, Police and the parties concerned, and the decision thereon should be taken by the CWC within a period of one month from today. 9. It is made clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioners to ask for adoption as per the provisions of Section 41 of the JJ Act. 10. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.