JUDGMENT 1. Notice of this special appeal on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the Government Advocate and Mr. Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General has put in appearance. 2. Mr. Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has no objection in case delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be heard finally. 3. Since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is satisfactory, therefore, application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The instant special appeal arises out of the order dated 28.10.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 594 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed for release of Sameeha Khatoon (opposite party No. 5), daughter of the appellant. The portion of the judgment and order 28.10.2013 under challenged in the instant special appeal is reproduced as under: Sameeha Khatoon has been produced in the Court by Superintendent of Government Protective Home, Faizabad. She was detained in Home in pursuance of the order dated 15.7.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in Criminal Case No. 335 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gaisdee, district Balrampur. As per medical report, she has been found to be 18 years. Copy of the application given before Special Marriage Officer/A.D.M., Siddharth Nagar, is on record. It shows that Tabrej and Sameeha Khatoon have married. On being asked, Sameeha Khatoon states that she does not want to stay in Protective Home and wants to go with Idrish, her father-in-law, who is present in Court and he assures that he will take full care of his daughter-in-law. Idrish has been identified by Sri M.G. Tripathi, Advocate, who files Vakalatnama on his behalf. Since Sameeha Khatoon is major, she cannot be detained in Home against her wishes. Consequently, I direct Superintendent, Protective Home, Faizabad to set Sameeha Khatoon free to go with Idrish, father-in-law. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Km. Sameeha Khatoon, who is victim of Case Crime No. 335 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., was medically examined and her age was found to be minor between the age of 14 to 15 years. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Km. Sameeha Khatoon, who is victim of Case Crime No. 335 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., was medically examined and her age was found to be minor between the age of 14 to 15 years. The Mark sheet of Class IX was also brought on record before the Magistrate in which her date of birth is mentioned as 3.9.2000. Accordingly, on the application of the Investigating Officer, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, passed an order dated 15.7.2013, directing Sameeha Khatoon to be kept in Government Protective Home, Faizabad, till she becomes major, where the daughter of the appellant was lodged. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the daughter of the appellant is minor, she could not be given in the custody of a person, who is not her natural guardian. Surprisingly, the daughter of the appellant has been ordered to be given in the supurdagi (custody) of the opposite party no. 4 (Idrees) who is said to be father-in-law of the victim Sameeha Khatoon. 7. It has been contended by the appellant that the daughter of the appellant being minor could not be given in the custody of an stranger without there being any cogent reason and hearing the appellant. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is an ex-parte and unjustified order. It has also been pointed out that no notice was ever issued to the appellant, who is the father of opposite party no. 5-Sameeha Khatoon and is lawful and natural guardian. It has vehemently been argued that the impugned order is not only in blatant disregard of principle of natural justice and non est but the learned Single Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction and even has taken up the matter when as per roaster, he was not assigned the habeas corpus cases. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and examining the record, it comes out that impugned order dated 28.10.2013 has been passed in a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 594 of 2012; Smt. Chawali vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the appellant is neither the petitioner nor the respondent. 9. It is relevant to point out here that the appellant has moved an application for exemption from filing record of writ petition No. 594 (H/C) of 2012. 9. It is relevant to point out here that the appellant has moved an application for exemption from filing record of writ petition No. 594 (H/C) of 2012. According to appellant, he is neither petitioner nor respondent in the aforesaid writ petition but he is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2013 passed in the said writ petition so far as it relates to his daughter. The application is allowed and appellant is exempted from filing record of the writ petition and as such, the record of the writ petition No. 594 (H/C) of 2012 was summoned from the Registry. 10. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 594 of 2012 on behalf of Smt. Chawali has been filed by one Raj Kamal Awasthi said to be husband of Smt. Chawali. It has been stated in the writ petition that Smt. Chawali and Raj Kumar Awasthi (next friend) fell in love with each other and decided to enter into wedlock. Accordingly, they solemnized marriage on 30.5.2012 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Aliganj, Lucknow. It appears that an F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Rajeshwar Devi at police station Kotwali Lakhimpur, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1339 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that Raj Kamal Awasthi and others have abducted her daughter, namely, Smt. Chawali, who is aged about 16 years. 11. Perusal of the record reveals that after recovery of the girl, namely, Smt. Chawali, she was produced before the Magistrate concerned, where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she was also medically examined. The Investigating Officer gave an application to the Magistrate that according to the Education Certificate of Class VIII, her date of birth is 23.9.1996 and she is minor. On this application, the Magistrate concerned has passed the order dated 10.12.2012, directing therein that Smt. Chawali shall be kept in Government Protective Home till she becomes major or till further order of the Court. Thereafter, Raj Kamal Awasthi the alleged husband of Smt. Chawali filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, referred to hereinabove, seeking following reliefs: A. Issue a writ, order or direction to the nature of Habeas Corpus directing to opposite party no-2 to produce to the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, Raj Kamal Awasthi the alleged husband of Smt. Chawali filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, referred to hereinabove, seeking following reliefs: A. Issue a writ, order or direction to the nature of Habeas Corpus directing to opposite party no-2 to produce to the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing to opposite party no-2 to set free to the petitioner from their custody with immediate effect. C. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed. D. Cost of the petition also be awarded in favour of the petitioner 12. Perusal of the order-sheet of the writ petition reveals that when the matter came up for orders before the learned Single Judge on 15.1.2013, it was noticed by him that large number of major girls are living in Women Protection Home, giving rise to number of Habeas Corpus Petitions. Consequently, the learned Single Judge constituted a Committee for recording the wishes of the inmates apart from their marital, physical, mental status and age. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: Consequently, with the consent of Sri K.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned Government Advocate, I appoint a Committee consisting of four members, namely, Smt. Durgesh Nandini, Smt. Shikha Srivastava and Km. Shabana Rizvi (from the penal of Legal Aid Counsels of High Court) and Director child-line as there may be some women having with them children. They have agreed to act pro-bono. No amount would be payable to them. Committee will go and visit Government Protection Home, Lucknow and record the wishes of all the inmates apart from their marital, physical, mental status and age. Superintendent Women Protective Home would render all the assistance to the members of the Committee which will visit the Home after due intimation to the Superintendent, Nari Niketan. Committee will also give report about the prevailing conditions of the Home so that matter may be taken at appropriate level. Report be submitted within three weeks. Thereafter suitable orders will be passed in each case. Should Committee feel any difficulty, at the hand of authorities, same may be immediately brought to the notice of the Court. Committee will also give report about the prevailing conditions of the Home so that matter may be taken at appropriate level. Report be submitted within three weeks. Thereafter suitable orders will be passed in each case. Should Committee feel any difficulty, at the hand of authorities, same may be immediately brought to the notice of the Court. So far as Smt. Chawali is concerned, directions have already been issued by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. on 04.01.2013. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. will file order passed by Magistrate in this case. List this petition for further orders on 20.02.2013. 13. It is not disputed that even minor cannot be detained against her wishes and further it is not open to the Magistrate to send the woman to Protective Home merely because family members are not coming forward to claim custody. Only victims of domestic violence, accused and women indulged in immoral traffic can be lodged in the Home. In the instant case, perusal of Annexure No. 2, which is the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balranmpur dated 15.7.2013, reveals that the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 335 of 2013, under Section 363 /366 I.P.C., police station Gaisadi, District Balrampur, moved an application before the Court that the statement of victim Sameeha Khatoon has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and prayed for passing appropriate order for her supurdagi (custody). The parents of the victim had also moved an application that they are the lawful father and mother of the victim and her date of birth is 3.2.2000. Even in medical examination, she has been found to be minor and as such, she should be given in their supurdagi. Another application was moved by one Mohd. Idrees (opposite party No. 4 herein) stating therein that he is father of Tabrej, who is lodged in Jail. He is further stated that he is the real father-in-law of the victim and prayed that she should be given in her custody. Learned Magistrate, after examining materials on record including the date of birth certificate, medical certificate and appearance, came to the conclusion that the girl is minor and she is not capable to understand between "right or wrong". Looking to the welfare of the victim, the learned Magistrate ordered on 15.7.2013 that Sameeha Khatoon (victim) be kept in Women Protective Home, Faizabad, till she becomes major. Looking to the welfare of the victim, the learned Magistrate ordered on 15.7.2013 that Sameeha Khatoon (victim) be kept in Women Protective Home, Faizabad, till she becomes major. The Medical Report annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the special appeal reveals the age of victim Sameeha Khatoon to be between 14 to 16 years. 14. It may be added that the learned Single Judge has given Sameeha Khatoon in the custody of Idrees, who is said to be father-in-law of the victim. It may be noted here that Idrees is the father of Tabrej, who is an accused of Case Crime No. 335 of 2013 under Sections 363/366 I.P.C. lodged by the appellant (father of the victim). The impugned order reveals that one Sri M.G. Tripathi, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Idrees but it is not clear as to whether there was any order for appearance of Idrees before this Court or he has moved any application claiming custody of Sameeha Khatoon. Learned Additional Advocate General shall file an affidavit bringing on record the application, if any, moved by Idrees for the custody of Sameeha Khatoon. 15. A perusal of the record of the writ petition shows that along with the writ petition, another writ petition, bearing No. 149 of 2014 (H/C) has been connected. A perusal of the record of the connected writ petition No. 149 of 2014 (H/C) shows that the relief claimed in the writ petition is similar as prayed in writ petition No. 594 of 2012 (H/C), the order of which is impugned in the instant appeal. We are unable to understand as to why the first writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 594 of 2012 (H/C) was sent to the learned Single Judge, whereas the second i.e. writ petition No. 149 of 2014 (H/C) was sent to the Hon'ble Division Bench, though relief clauses are identical. In both the writ petitions, there is no private detention and the victims were sent to Protective Home under the orders of the competent Court. The Stamp Reporter has produced before us a copy of the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 21.4.1978, which is still in force, shows that all Habeas Corpus Petitions against private custody shall only be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge. 16. The Stamp Reporter has produced before us a copy of the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 21.4.1978, which is still in force, shows that all Habeas Corpus Petitions against private custody shall only be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge. 16. Accordingly, the Joint Registrar (Listing) and the Stamp Reporter shall submit their explanation on the date fixed before the Court. 17. As far as the prayer in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 594 of 2012 is concerned, Smt. Chawali was kept in Protective Home pursuant to an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri. Thus, she was not in confinement of private person. Therefore, the matter was cognizable by Division Bench but on account of wrong reporting of the Stamp Reporter, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Single Judge. The Stamp Reporter was summoned by us and he submitted that the matters relating to private confinement only are cognizable by Single Judge. However, we refrain ourselves recording any finding at this stage as it may adversely effect the rights of the parties. 18. Prima facie, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the girl is minor as held by the Court below in the order dated 15.7.2013 and the learned Single Judge fell into a grave error in giving Sameeha Khatoon in the custody of Idrees (opposite party No. 4), who is none other than the father of accused Tabrej. It may be noted that the appellant has prayed for the stay of the impugned order so far as it relates to her daughter Sameeha Khatoon but neither the State Counsel nor the counsel for the appellant are sure that whether Sameeha Khatoon has been set free by the Superintendent of Women Protective Home, Faizabad and she has been given in the custody of Idrees. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter is extremely urgent as it relates to unlawful custody of a minor girl and as such, the matter may be given priority. 20. For the facts narrated hereinabove and looking to the urgency of the matter, we issue notice to the opposite party No. 4-Idrees to produce Sameeha Khatoon before this Court on 12.9.2014. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur shall ensure presence of girl Sameeha Khatoon before this Court on the date fixed. 20. For the facts narrated hereinabove and looking to the urgency of the matter, we issue notice to the opposite party No. 4-Idrees to produce Sameeha Khatoon before this Court on 12.9.2014. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur shall ensure presence of girl Sameeha Khatoon before this Court on the date fixed. In the event, Sameeha Khatoon is still in the custody of Government Protective Home, Faizabad, the Superintendent, Government Protective Home, Faizabad shall ensure the presence of Sameeha Khatoon on 12.9.2014 before this Court. 21. It would be apt to mention here that on perusal of the record of the writ petition No. 594 (H/C) of 2012, several applications are pending disposal with regards to release of the inmates, on the basis of the report of the Committee so constituted by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, therefore, we deem it appropriate to defer the proceedings in respect of pending applications before the learned Single Judge in the matter as we have, already indicated above that the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant habeas corpus petition in view of the Notification of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 22. Accordingly, we provide that further proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge in respect of the pending applications in the writ petition shall be deferred, till the next date of listing. 23. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur is further directed to serve a copy of this order upon Idrees, resident of Village Shivpur Vijaynagar, Police Station Pachperwa, Post Dhawai, Pergana and Tehsil Tulsipur, District Balrampur. 24. List this special appeal on 12.9.2014 along with record of writ petition No. 594 (H/C) of 2012. Appellant and the Superintendent, Government Protective Home, Faizabad shall also appear in person before this Court on the date fixed. Counsel for the appellant shall ensure the presence of the appellant in person before this Court on the date fixed. 25. Registry is directed to send a FAX message of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur and the Superintendent, Government Protective Home, Faizabad, for compliance. 26. The copy of this order along with duplicate of the special appeal shall also be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur through Special Messenger today for service on Idrees (opposite party No. 4). 27. 26. The copy of this order along with duplicate of the special appeal shall also be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur through Special Messenger today for service on Idrees (opposite party No. 4). 27. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General, who shall file necessary affidavit, as indicated hereinabove.