Point of law:
Committee after interaction with the child may issue directions for placing the child with the parent or guardian or Children’s Home, where such Home is available in the vicinity of the Committee before which the child is produced, and in the absence of such Home, to direct the placing of the child in safe custody of a fit person or a fit facility.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the impugned directions dated 20.05.2019 and 12.07.2019 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Udaipur (‘the CWC’), whereby the SHO, Police Station, Bhupalpura has been directed to produce the petitioner’s son before the Committee on 24.05.2019 and the SHO has been informed that the respondent No.3 has been granted permission to meet his son-Granth and, therefore, the child be permitted to meet his father every Sunday for three hours at Mother Teresa Home, Bhupalpura, respectively.

2. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 got married on 13.07.2016. It is alleged that the relations between the petitioner and her family and the respondent No.3 and his family on account of demand of dowry etc., resulted in discord, however, a male child Granth was born to the couple on 11.10.2017, which child presently is with the petitioner-Mother.

3. It is further alleged that the respondent No.3 tried to forcibly take away the child from the petitioner’s custody, on account of which, he was bound by the police under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, which resulted in registration of FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, however, a negative report was given by the police, against which, protest petition filed by the petitioner is pending.

4. It is also alleged that on account of the marital discord, resulting in initiation of various proceedings/counter proceedings, the respondent No.3 filed an application (Annex.-3) on 20.05.2019 before the CWC, inter alia, seeking custody of the child and access (meeting rights). On the same day itself, the SHO, Police Station Bhupalpura was directed to produce the child before the CWC on 24.05.2019.

5. From the record, it appears that the child was not produced before the CWC on 24.05.2019 and 27.05.2019 and, therefore, the matter was fixed on 29.05.2019, on which date the child was produced, when observations were made by the Committee that the child played with the relatives i.e. parents and sister of respondent No.3 and appeared happy, the CWC attempted to mediate between the parties, when time was sought and, therefore, the parties were directed to remain present on 26.06.2019.

6. In the meanwhile, on 28.05.2019, in the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, notices were ordered to be issued and till further orders, it was directed that the custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner.

7. The petitioner thereafter did not appear before the CWC on 26.06.2019 when the respondent No.3 filed another application again seeking custody. Whereafter, it appears that by order dated 12.07.2019, direction was issued to the SHO, Police Station Bhupalpura indicating permission having been granted to respondent No.3 to meet his son and it was directed that in the presence of SHO, every Sunday, the child would meet his father at Mother Teresa Home, Bhupalpura.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application with an ulterior motive has been filed by the respondent No.3 before the CWC only with a view to misuse the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the Act’), as a counter blast against the petitioner.

9. Submissions have been made that a bare look at the application filed clearly indicates that the application has been filed to seek the custody and access to the child, which jurisdiction lies with the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The application is essentially an abuse of the process of the law.

10. Further submissions have been made that the material produced by the respondent No.3 in response to the writ petition pertains to the period 2017, which though disputed, cannot form the basis for passing of the order impugned.

11. Submissions have been made that the proceedings before the CWC are wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the reliefs sought pertain to jurisdic