The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction to grant permission or access to the respondent no.2 to the minor child is vested with the Family Court concerned alone, and the impugned order of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), District South was set aside, allowing the respondent no.2 to seek visitation rights before the Family Court concerned.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

The petitioner, the mother of the minor child Saarthik Mehta aged 9 months on the date 14.09.2018 i.e. the date of the impugned order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), District South bearing D.No.CWC/LN/2018-19/982 seeks the setting aside of the said impugned order of the CWC (South), vide which the CWC observed to the effect that considering the best interest of the child who was just nine months old, the Committee decided to give permission to the father of the child, Commander Rahul Mehta to have access to the child Master Saarthik Mehta to meet his child for two hours on every Saturday/ Sunday during the day time with mutual convenience of the both parents at the residence of the mother.

2. The respondent no.2, Mr. Rahul Mehta, father of the minor child is indicated to have filed an application under Section 2 (14) (iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to restore the basic right of the child under Article 9 of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which provides that in the event of separation of parents, children have the right to live with their parents unless it is bad for them and the children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child which convention has been ratified by India on 11th December, 1992.

3. Vide the impugned order, it is indicated that the CWC interacted with both parents and conducted an enquiry on 13.08.2018 when the mother of the child had been called upon to produce the child by the CWC when the respondent no.2 herein i.e. father of the child had moved an application through a child right activist that the child was being denied love, care and protection of his biological father by the biological mother, the child was, however, not produced by the petitioner herein stating that the child was unwell. The CWC is indicated to have considered the S.I.R. of the mother and the father and thereafter passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2018.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the impugned order of the CWC is contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and is beyond the jurisdiction of the CWC. The petitioner has further submitted that the terms and provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have been misunderstood by the CWC and that the CWC does not have the authority to ignore and traverse the provisions of neither the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 nor of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 nor of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

5. Other submissions were also made by the petitioner mother of the minor child that the CWC had not considered the request for grant of maintenance of herself and for the child, which has not been paid by the respondent. The petitioner submits that it is the Family Court or the Guardian Court, which is the competent Court to deal with the matters to decide the visitation rights after hearing both parties and also to determine the maintenance that may be awarded in given circumstances after ascertaining the income of either side.

6. During the course of the hearing on 20.09.2018, when notice of the petition was issued and accepted on behalf of the respondent no.1 and notice of the petition was issued to the respondent no.2, it had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are litigations pending between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 i.e. the mother and the father of the minor child in question in relation to the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act pending before the Family Court in the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, 1973 as filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent no.2 and that there have been mediation proceedings entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 on the date 10.08.2018 and that the impugned order is de hors the provisio