Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
Ram Bahadur Singh - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 617 of 2024
Decided On : 15-02-2024
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - Child in Need of Care and Protection - Section 2(14), Section 37, Section 104 - The court discussed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, specifically focusing on the definition of 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14), the powers of the Child Welfare Committee under Section 37, and the wide powers to amend its own orders under Section 104. The court emphasized the temporary nature of detention in a protection home and the guiding principles for decision-making, highlighting the best interest of the child, family responsibility, safety, institutionalization, repatriation, and restoration.
Fact of the Case:
An F.I.R. was lodged for the missing 15-year-old daughter under Section 363 I.P.C. The Child Welfare Committee (C.W.C.) ordered the girl to be kept in a 'woman protection home' as her family members refused to take custody. The father-in-law challenged the order, claiming better entitlement to her custody. The court noted that the father-in-law never applied for custody before the C.W.C. and criticized the superficial manner in which the C.W.C. passed the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the father-in-law's failure to apply for custody before the C.W.C. raised questions about his standing to challenge the order. It criticized the C.W.C.'s superficial inquiry and emphasized the temporary nature of detention in a protection home. The court also highlighted the wide powers of the C.W.C. to amend its own orders under Section 104 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
Issues: The issues involved the father-in-law's standing to challenge the C.W.C.'s order, the adequacy of the C.W.C.'s inquiry, and the jurisdiction of the appellate court under Section 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the father-in-law's failure to apply for custody before the C.W.C. raised questions about his standing to challenge the order. It emphasized the need for a proper inquiry by the C.W.C. and clarified the jurisdiction of the appellate court under Section 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
Final Decision: The court granted the father-in-law an opportunity to move a fresh application before the C.W.C. and set aside the appellate court's order. It directed the C.W.C. to decide the matter in accordance with the law and provided guidance for future cases.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nand Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist Ram Bahadur Singh has challenged an order passed by the C.W.C. dated 09.02.2023 by which victim girl, a juvenile has been ordered to be kept in a ‘woman protection home’ and further an order passed by the appellate court dated 08.01.2024, whereby the appeal moved by the instant revisionist under Section 101 of J. J. Act, 2015 was dismissed at the stage of admission.
3. The relevant facts are that an F.I.R. came to be lodged against unknown person as regard missing of 15 year old daughter of the first informant under Section 363 I.P.C. The girl was recovered and was produced before the C.W.C. The C.W.C. enquired into the matter and found that her family members refused to appear before the C.W.C. for her custody and, therefore, with an unanimous opinion, she was directed to be kept in a Women Protection Home at Prayagraj. Ram Bahadur Singh filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid order under Section 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
4. The main submissions of the revisionist are:- First that he is father-in-law of the detenue and that because her husband (i.e. his son) has been charge-sheeted and is facing trial in the instant case, therefore, she may be released from protection home into his custody; In the given circumstances he is better entitled to claim her custody and that her welfare can only be looked after by him; and that her own parents never came forward to take her into their custody; and that the girl herself wanted to remain in her in-law’s family. It is further submitted that she did not give any evidence against her husband and that she does not face any threats from him and that CWC ignored all the facts and circumstances of the matter and passed an order of sending her to a protection home in an arbitrary manner. It is contended in addition that the appeal filed by her father-in-law Ram Bahadur Singh has been dismissed without taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances and that the appellate court passed the order in a mechanical manner.
5. Before any legal or factual issue is considered in this matter, it is important to notice that the instant revisionist- alleged father-in-law of the detenue, admittedly never moved any application before the C.W.C, for obtaining her custody. Obviously this question arises that when he did not move any application to obtain her custody, how can he be treated as an aggrieved person and therefore, whether any appeal could have been filed by him challenging the impugned order passed by the C.W.C.? At this stage I prefer to leave aside such issues and deal with certain other issues of greater importance arising in this case.
6. The J.J. Act, 2015 is a comprehensive act dealing with two types of juveniles first those who are treated as “child in conflict with law”, secondly, those who are treated as “child in need of care and protection”.
Certain things are noticeable viz.-:
- When a child shall be treated as a ‘child in need of care and protection’ is provided in section 2 (14) of the Act which broadly provides that any child who has parents or guardian and such parents and guardian are found to be unfit to take care for and protect the safety and well being of a child or where a child does not have parents and no one is willing to take care of him/her, or where a child has been or is being or is likely to be abused, tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts, may also be treated as child in care of need and protection, besides children falling in several other categories.
- The Child Welfare Committees have been constituted for children in need of care and protect
The main legal point established is the temporary nature of detention in a protection home for a child in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the wide powers of the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper interpretation of the appeal procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act, specifically highlighting the jurisdiction of the appellate cour....
Proper determination of age and declaration as a child in need of care and protection is essential for the detention of minors in child care institutions, and the J.J. Act, 2015 provides for release ....
Detention – Child Welfare Committee - Once corpus is minor and the girl had refused to go with her parents, then in such situation arrangement has to be made. Her interest is paramount and before pro....
The court emphasized the necessity of thorough psychological evaluations for juveniles in conflict with law, asserting that inadequate assessments violate statutory requirements under the Juvenile Ju....
The court affirmed that the Board's reliance on social and counseling reports satisfied statutory requirements for trying a child as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
