JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. This petition, seeking the issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus, has been filed by the mother of a four month old baby, who has been taken into protective custody by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on the allegation that she had abandoned him. 2. The petitioner asserts that she had not abandoned her child at all and that she cannot do so because she is the mother of another three children; but that, on account of her unexpendable necessity to work, she had entrusted the child temporarily with the 4 th respondent for safekeeping for a while. She asserts that this has been misinterpreted by the Child Welfare Committee and by the District Child Protection Officer, as being abandonment; and therefore, that she has been constrained to approach this Court through this Writ Petition. 3. This is not the first time that we have heard this matter. We considered this case for the first time on 16.06.2025; and we called for a report about the situation in a discreet manner. 4. The matter was then considered by us on 19.06.2025 when we passed the following order, after interacting with the 4 th respondent, who was present in person: “The petitioner is not present today though the 4th respondent is present. 2. We interacted with the 4 th respondent, who told us that she and the petitioner are friends and that their acquaintance go back to their younger days, when they were studying together in a computer centre. She explained that the petitioner handed over the child in question to her for safekeeping; and conceded that she and her husband had the intent of adopting her in due course. She started crying saying that, unfortunately her good intent has been mistaken by the Child Protection Officers and CWC; and that they have given wide publicity, to appear that she had entered into some kind of an illegal transaction with the petitioner. She concluded saying that, though she has attachment with the child, she is fully aware that she cannot keep her in custody, until she is able to obtain legal adoption orders. 3. The afore version of the 4 th respondent cannot be verified by us because, the petitioner is not present in person. Her learned counsel seeks further time for the petitioner’s appearance. 3. The afore version of the 4 th respondent cannot be verified by us because, the petitioner is not present in person. Her learned counsel seeks further time for the petitioner’s appearance. We, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 24.06.2025; however, directing the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Nath to obtain specific instructions from the CWC regarding the afore version of the 4th respondent, after making necessary inquiries, but in a discrete manner. We direct the Child Protection Officers and CWC to ensure that the privacy of the 4 th respondent or her husband is not breached in any manner and that no information about our orders qua her is sent out to any other person or entity. For report, post on 24.06.2025.” 5. The Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Alappuzha, thereafter favoured a report, in which he says that the entrustment of the child by the petitioner - mother with the 4 th respondent was not intended for a short period as asserted by her; but that the arrangement between them was unholy, in the form of an illegal adoption. 6. We, thereupon, called this matter on 26.06.2025 and after interacting with the petitioner, passed the following order: “The petitioner is again present in person before us today, along with a person whom she claims to be her lawfully wedded husband. She asserted that her husband is willing to accept the ‘alleged detenue’ from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and pleaded that this Writ Petition be thus allowed. 2. Unfortunately for us, the person - who is present, being the husband of the petitioner - is incapable of verbal communication, and hence our interaction with him was not effected in the absence of a proper sign language expert. However, he wrote in a notepad that his name is Bineesh V. and that he was married to the petitioner. However, pertinently, he and the petitioner informed us that they did not have any document to establish that they are legally married, nor were they even able to tell us the date on which they were married. 3. Obviously, an inquiry from our side is not feasible. 4. However, pertinently, he and the petitioner informed us that they did not have any document to establish that they are legally married, nor were they even able to tell us the date on which they were married. 3. Obviously, an inquiry from our side is not feasible. 4. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner and her stated husband must appear before the Chairperson, CWC, so that they can inquire about them with the aid of a sign language expert and then give us a report, consequent to which alone we will be able to take a final decision. 5. Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner and her stated husband can appear before the Chairperson, CWC, at 11 a.m. on 27.06.2025; and that, after the inquiry, a report will be favoured to us. 6. We find the above suggestion is feasible. 7. We, therefore, direct the petitioner and her stated husband to appear before the Chairperson, CWC, Alappuzha, at 11 a.m. on 27.06.2025. The said Authority will favour us with his report to the learned Government Pleader, if possible, at 1.45 p.m. on 27.06.2025. 8. Needless to say, the report will also contain as much information as possible about the real parentage of the child in question. List, therefore, at 1.45 p.m. on 27.06.2025.” 7. However, on 04.07.2025, there were certain heated arguments by the learned Counsel for the petitioner; and we were thus thrown into confusion as to what really is the true position. We recorded our confusion in the order of the said date, which is extracted below: “Even though the petitioner had appeared before us personally on 26.06 2025 and told us that her husband is willing to take care of the child, the report that we obtained from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) speaks to the contrary. It records that the husband is not willing to accept the child; and obviously this creates a question as to the safety of the child particularly, when the petitioner asserts as afore. 2. It records that the husband is not willing to accept the child; and obviously this creates a question as to the safety of the child particularly, when the petitioner asserts as afore. 2. That apart, the records indicate – without us saying it affirmatively – that there was some sort of arrangement between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent and her husband, which had been confirmed by the said respondent, when she appeared before us in person, when she candidly confessed that the arrangement was one of adoption and then told us that she was not aware that what was being done was illegal. 3. To summate, our concern is about the child and his safety. If we are to be convinced that the child will be safe with the mother, we will have little objection in giving her custody; but it is for her to convince so. Unfortunately today, her learned Counsel was unable to answer any question put to him by us on this issue, but exhibited a rather belligerent attitude; and challenged us to cause an enquiry into his client's conduct. We do not think that this would be in the best interests of the petitioner; and we therefore, adjourn this matter, to be called on 07.07.2025, for the petitioner and her husband to be present before this Court again.” 8. Today the petitioner and her husband are present; and we talked to the latter. We affirmed that he is willing to take care of the child and bring him up as his own, along with his other three children. 9. The Government Pleader - Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, intervened to say that the situation is not as innocuous as it has been now placed before us; but that the fact remains that the child, though requiring breastfeeding, was literally given up by the petitioner in favour of the 4 th respondent; and that they had an arrangement between them to make it an adoption, which is illegal in its nature. He also threw some doubts on the paternity of the child; but conceded that that may not be relevant if we are able to convince ourselves that the mother has not abandoned the child. 10. No doubt, there are certain suspicious circumstances and facets involving this case. He also threw some doubts on the paternity of the child; but conceded that that may not be relevant if we are able to convince ourselves that the mother has not abandoned the child. 10. No doubt, there are certain suspicious circumstances and facets involving this case. The reports made available by the official respondents would indicate - as has also been confirmed by the petitioner before us - that her husband is not the father of the child; but this is of no consequence, as rightly submitted by Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, because we are not considering this matter from a moral standpoint, but only within the forensic ambit. 11. The petitioner tells us, being present before us along with the husband today, that she is eking out livelihood by working in several houses. It is possible that she would, therefore, require somebody to take care of the child when she is doing so. Of course, the contra-case, that she was trying to give up the child in favour of the 4 th respondent, may also be possible; but viewed from the perspective of the requirements of the child, we are enjoined to first verify whether the mother can be in his care, particularly because he requires breastfeeding. In fact, we are told that even when the child is in the custody of the Child Welfare Committee, the mother visits him constantly and nurses him. 12. As indicated above, the arrangement between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent is slightly suspicious. However, we can always ensure that the child is safe, by enforcing sufficient precautions. 13. Prima facie, we cannot convince ourselves that the conduct of the mother is in such a manner so as to conclude that she has abandoned the child in favour of the 4 th respondent. When such issues are not fully settled, we do not think it will be proper to keep the child away from his mother, particularly because it will contravene the latter's constitutional rights more than that of the former. 14. In such view, we are firmly of the opinion that the child should go back to the mother; however ensuring certain safeguards. 15. Consequently, we allow this Writ Petition; and direct respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the child to the petitioner – mother forthwith on production of a copy of this judgment. 14. In such view, we are firmly of the opinion that the child should go back to the mother; however ensuring certain safeguards. 15. Consequently, we allow this Writ Petition; and direct respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the child to the petitioner – mother forthwith on production of a copy of this judgment. However, the Jurisdictional Child Welfare Officer, in assistance with the local “ASHA” worker, will keep an eye on the petitioner and her infant son and file monthly reports for a minimum period of four months from today, unless we extend it further. Needless to say, the Registry will list this matter for our consideration every time a report is obtained from the above Officers, through the learned Government Pleader.