Jyothindranath, J.

The challenge in this revision petition is against the order of the Child Welfare Committee, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) dated 17.3.2018 in O.P.No.713/R/2017. A child aged 13 years was found as a child in need of care and protection by the Committee. An application for release of the child by the father and the grandmother was dismissed by the Committee by the impugned order. Alleging that the said order is illegal and perverse, the revision petitioners/father and grandmother of the child filed this revision petition. The impugned minuscule order is as follows :

“xxx”

As this is a revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the records were called for.

2. The facts are as follows :

The juvenile lost her mother while she was aged only 10 years. Thereafter, her father married again and she was staying with her father, stepmother and her younger sister. It appears that she shifted her residence to the house of her maternal grandmother. While so, on 28.11.2017 she was seen missing. When she was found out, a crime was registered under the POCSO Act against one Anandu. As per the order of the Judicial Magistrate, she was produced before the Committee. Even though the second petitioner approached the Committee on 4.12.2017 she was not released or given the custody to the second petitioner. Thereafter on 6.12.2017 she again absconded from the Mahila Mandiram, where she was stationed. A crime was registered in this regard at the police station. Thereafter she was again admitted in the Mahila Mandiram on 22.12.2017. Again on 29.12.2017 she disappeared from the said Mahila Mandiram against which also a crime was registered. She was detected on 3.1.2018. It is also evident from the records that the second petitioner sought permission to see the child on so many occasions and also visited her. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitions filed for the release and custody of the child by the first petitioner as well as by the second petitioner was rejected as per the impugned order.

3. A perusal of the impugned order will reveal that the ground on which the petition was dismissed is that the second petitioner was found incapable of looking-after the child as well as there is possibility of meeting the child by the accused in the POCSO case where victim is the juvenile. The prayer of the first petitioner was rejected on the ground of negligence as well as lack of effective intervention in looking-after the child. The child was treated as a child in need of care and protection by the Committee. The definition of such a child is given under Section 2 (14) of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 2 (14) of the Act reads as follows:

(14) “child in need of care and protection” means a child-

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

(v) who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is found to be unfit or incapacitated, by the Committee or the Board, to care for and protect the safety and well-being of the child; or

4. While appreciating the materials before us, it will be only pertinent to highlight Section 3 of the Act, in which the general principles to be followed in the administration of the Act is given. Section 3 of the Act states as follows :

3. General principles to be followed in administration of Act.-The Central Government, the State Governments, the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following fundamental principles, namely :--

(i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.

(ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All human beings shall be treated with equal dignity and rights.

(iii) Principle of participation: Every child shall have a right to be heard and to participate in all processes and decisions affecting his inte