Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. Snehalatha, JJ.
Sarithamol N.S – Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Government Children’s Home And Ors. – Respondents
WP(CRL.) NO. 513 OF 2025
Decided On : 07-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.P.Sivaraj, Smt.M.Mehar Farsana
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor, P.Narayanan, Spl. G.P. To Dgp And Addl. P.P. Director General Of Prosecution, Sri N B Sunil Nath-GP
The court held that a mother's temporary entrustment of her child does not equate to abandonment, thus affirming her right to custody while ensuring procedural safeguards for child welfare.
Headnote:(A) The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Petition by mother seeking custody of child - Allegations of abandonment refuted by mother, asserting temporary entrustment to a friend due to work necessity. Concerns of legality surrounding adoption attempt were raised. (Paras 2, 5, 9, 13)
(B) Child Welfare Committee - Responsibilities and evaluations regarding child safety and custody - Balancing maternal rights with child welfare. (Paras 7, 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a mother of four children, whose infant was taken into protective custody based on allegations of abandonment, which she contests as a misunderstanding of her temporary arrangement for safekeeping.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the mother had not abandoned the child, allowing her custody with safeguards in place to ensure child's welfare.
Issues: Key issues included the interpretation of the mother's temporary arrangement as abandonment and the legality of her relationship with the 4th respondent regarding child custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that, given the absence of definitive evidence confirming abandonment, the mother’s constitutional rights necessitated the child’s return, provided safeguards were implemented.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; child to be returned to the mother.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mother's claim of not abandoning the child. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assessment of custody concerns and background. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. the legality of the child's entrustment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. balancing mother's rights with child's welfare. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. writ petition allowed, child returned to mother. (Para 14 , 15) |
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 4th 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 4th respondent, who was present in person:
“The petitioner is not present today though the 4th respondent is present.
2. We interacted with the 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 ver
