"We are guilty of many errors and faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the foundation of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot; right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. To him, we cannot answer 'tomorrow'. His name is today'." (Gabriel Mistral)

Yes, I shall not wait. I cannot answer him, "tomorrow'. I must speak for him today. Each and every letter of the above quote must inspire me to speak for him today--his name is 'today' !!

Facts Briefly:

2. Five minor children of different age, both male and female (I shall avoid mentioning their names in this Judgment in their best interest), were produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the additional third respondent herein, under S.32 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short), along with a report. According to additional third respondent, he is the Secretary of 'Jena Seva Sishubhavan' which is an Institution registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 which saves street children who arc found begging, with the aid of the social workers and officials. It is averred that it aims to eradicate child begging and child labour. It is stated in the report filed by third respondent that all the five children were found begging, without any home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence.

3. The additional third respondent therefore, sought for release of the children to the temporary care and protection of the Institution, where the third respondent is the Secretary. Other prayers are also made: (i) to transfer the children to any other juvenile home or special home as the court deems fit, for the welfare and safe custody of the children (ii) to pass any other order or direction which the court deems fit for the welfare of the children.

4. On production of the children along with a report, learned Magistrate, while acting as the Child Welfare Committee ('the Committee' for short). in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (vide Parvathy y. Superintendent, Corporation Relief Centre (2002 (1) KLT 523), passed the following order:

“………They are now under the care and protection of Janaseva Sishubhavan, Aluva and they have no parents or relatives to look after or take care of now. Therefore, they are entrusted to Janaseva Sishubhavan for proper care and protection and rehabilitation until further orders pending enquiry". (Emphasis supplied)

5. After about six months, a petition was filed by second respondent herein before the same Magistrate, claiming himself to be the father of the three female children, who were entrusted to the institution (they are named in the petition). He undertook that he would look after them and provide care and protection to them and also educate them at his native place. The second respondent made a request to give a direction to the Institution to release the children to him.

6. On receiving the petition, learned Magistrate ordered for production of documents. The second respondent produced certain photographs and documents. Thereafter, on his being satisfied that second respondent is the father of the three children, impugned order was passed by learned Magistrate , directing petitioner herein to release the children forthwith to second respondent. The said order is challenged by the Director of the institution, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Magistrate/Committee, on various grounds.

7. While learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently argue that the Institution is entitled to retain the children in their custody, in the best interest of the children, learned counsel for second respondent strongly contended that second respondent, being the father, has the exclusive right to have the children in his custody and control. It was also pointed out that the Inst