JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. 1. The writ-petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for recovery of his minor girl aged about 13 years, who has been allegedly detained illegally and unauthorizedly by the respondent/police authority in collusion with District Child Line Service, 24-Parganas (South). 2. It is the case of the writ-petitioner, a member of Indian Airforce that while he used to reside at his place of employment at Assam, his wife the added respondent no. 6 and their minor daughter Ananta Laxmi used to stay together at Rajarhat, Kolkata. It is his further case that her daughter regularly over phone used to make grievances against her mother and was complaining that her mother used to return home late night and whenever remained at house she used to spent her times with her friends, mostly male persons, who visited their flat and neither taking any care nor looking after her and in fact she has been totally neglected and abandoned. His daughter also complained that quite often she was beaten up by her mother on one pretext or other whenever she raised protest. In the first week of April 2012 the petitioner came down to Kolkata when he was again contacted by her daughter over phone and she made similar complaint to him. The writ-petitioner at once reported the incident to the Kolkata Leather Complex Police Station and the police officer on duty insisted him to bring his daughter at the police station otherwise nothing could be done. Since the writ-petitioner has no access to his daughter he could not produce her at the police station. Thereafter, on April 13, 2012 somehow or other his daughter managed to come out from the custody of her mother and met the petitioner. At once she was taken to Kolkata Leather Complex Police Station by the petitioner himself. At the police Station his daughter lodged a General Diary being General Diary No. 922 dated 13.04.2012 and her entire statement to the police was recorded under videography. Although his daughter wanted to go with the writ-petitioner but police did not permit her. The police authority then in collusion with the respondent no. 5 illegally and forcibly detained her in a children home ‘Sneha Sanlaap’ against her will. Although his daughter wanted to go with the writ-petitioner but police did not permit her. The police authority then in collusion with the respondent no. 5 illegally and forcibly detained her in a children home ‘Sneha Sanlaap’ against her will. Even the police also did not permit the petitioner to meet his daughter. 3. Initially, the mother and the Child Welfare Committee, the added respondents were not impleaded. However, when this matter is taken up for hearing on the second occasion, both the said respondents appeared before us through their respective lawyers and claimed that they are necessary parties and without hearing them no decision can be taken in the matter. When the learned Counsel of the petitioner added them as respondent nos. 6 and 7. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing in presence of the learned lawyers who represented the respective parties. 4. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel of the petitioner submitted that the writ-petitioner being the father and natural guardian of the minor Ananta Laxmi and as she is being completely neglected and not properly looked after by her mother, the respondent no. 6 and thus her welfare being completely jeopardized her custody be given to the writ-petitioner, her father who is very much concerned with her welfare and has every means to maintain her properly and adequately. It is also contended her detention at ‘Sneha Sanlaap’ is unauthorized and illegal. It is further contended when father is willing to keep in his custody and daughter is also desirous to remain with him, for the welfare of the child, her custody be given to her father, the writ-petitioner herein, otherwise her upbringing will be seriously prejudiced. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6 disputed all the allegations made from the side of the writ-petitioner and contended that it is a case where parents are fighting with each other for the custody of their minor daughter and the question of custody cannot be decided in this writ application. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 produced the Case Diary and submitted that the girl was sent to children home pursuant to the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, South 24-Parganas and if the petitioner has any grievance he has the right to file appeal before the Sessions Court. 7. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 produced the Case Diary and submitted that the girl was sent to children home pursuant to the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, South 24-Parganas and if the petitioner has any grievance he has the right to file appeal before the Sessions Court. 7. It may be noted pursuant to our order the minor Ananta Laxmi is produced before us and she expressed her grievances to us against her mother and her desire to go with her father. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the Case Dockets. We find in this case rightly or wrongly the minor was sent to the children home by a competent authority, the Child Welfare Committee, 24-Parganas (South) in exercise of the statutory power conferred on it under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Therefore, the minor was sent to the children home by the Child Welfare Committee in exercise of its lawful power and it cannot be said she has been detained there illegally and unauthorizedly. Moreover we find such order is an appelable order and the writ-petitioner has approached this Court for the custody of the minor on a disputed question of fact. Neither we find the order of the Child Welfare Committee is an order passed without jurisdiction nor an invalid order and also do not find there is any prima facie wrong. 9. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee in exercise of our Constitutional writ jurisdiction issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus. This application stands dismissed. 10. However, we make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and this order will not preclude the writ-petitioner to proceed in accordance with law for the custody of his daughter. 11. Office is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. Toufique Uddin, J.; I agree