IMPORTANT POINTS:" The child attained the age of 15 years and her wishes should have been given due consideration and the impugned order does not state that they have considered the opinion of the victim child.
" Then the Welfare Committee shall evaluate the suitability of the person to whom the custody is to be given guided by the fundamental principle envisaged under Section 3 of the Act. The child Welfare Committee has not considered it under Section 40 of the Act and no inquiry was conducted under Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The main argument was that she is stationed in the Children Home since her life is not safe at home. The ground which was stated that there is possibility of access of the accused to the victim. But it is not a ground to station the juvenile in the children home. It has come out that the victim is stationed at shelter home against her wishes. The committee should have given prime importance to the wishes of the child.

Annie John, J.

This Revision Petition is filed against Order No.CWC/TVPM/113/2019 dated 19.02.2019 issued by the Child Welfare Committee, Thiruvananthapuram District. The legality and propriety of Order No.CWC/TVPM/113/2019 dated 19.02.2019 whereby the respondents have declared that the minor daughter of the revision petitioner is a child who requires care and protection and further that the care, protection, further studies and counselling shall be carried out by admitting the child in an institutions, is under challenge.

2. The revision petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of a minor female child who was allegedly subjected to an incident of sexual assault. The revision petitioner is also espousing the grievance of the father of the aforementioned child, who, being abroad in connection with his avocation is unable to be a party in this proceedings.

3. The minor child (victim herein) belongs to a middle-class family which is having social reputation and goodwill in the vicinity of their residence. The child was under the care and protection of her mother/revision petitioner, grandmother, father's younger brother and his son who were living like a joint family in their residences situated at around 20 meters apart. Apart from the aforesaid minor child, the revision petitioner is having another daughter who got married one year back. At present, the victim child is studying in the 10th standard in a reputed school near by and she is now slated to appear for her board examinations which are scheduled to be commenced on 05.03.2019.

4. It was further alleged that on 02.02.2019, the revision petitioner's family understood about the alleged incident of sexual assault of her daughter by Imam Sheikh Kasmi. Immediately after the victim reached her home, the revision petitioner enquired with her daughter about the true facts with regard to the alleged incident but she had totally denied it. Since the victim had denied about sexual assault, the revision petitioner believed her words. Later, it is learnt by the revision petitioner through the media that during the counselling, the victim has confessed to the fact, that she was subjected to sexual assault, and her statement has been recorded by the Magistrate. The Child Welfare Committee have insisted that the child can be permitted to go only along with her father and accordingly, the revision petitioner's husband arrived in Kerala on 14.02.2019. Despite the fact that the investigation pertaining to the aforesaid incident was over, the Child Welfare Committee refused to handover the custody of the child to the revision petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents issued an Order dated 19.02.2019 under Section 37 of the Act wherein a finding has been entered upon that the minor daughter of the revision petitioner is a person who requires care and protection and further, directed that the care, protection, further studies and counselling shall be carried out by admitting the child in an institution. The continued detention of the victim under the orders of the Child Welfare Committee is prejudicial to the rights, interests, future and the well being of the victim as the minor requires the moral support, guidance and presence of her mother and close relatives during the aforesaid examinations and for her future life. The child has been subjected to intense unwarranted media attention and immense mental distress due to her stay in an alien place. It is highly essential to get custody of the child as she should prepare and appear for the examinations and the continued detention against her wish would be prejudicial to the interests of the child. Further it was alleged that the adolescent child requires the care and support of her parents and close relatives for her future life. Now the revision petitioner has approached this Court by stating that the Order passed by the Child Welfare Committee is illegal and the minor child was under the proper care and support of the revision petitione