Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Ram Kumar Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 62 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.P.S. Bhatia
For the Respondents: Vartika Shrivastava

The Child Welfare Committee lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate private custody or guardianship disputes; such matters must be resolved by a competent civil court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Proceedings initiated by the CWC in such instances, especially without following prescribed procedures, are void ab initio.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 2(13), 2(14), 27, 29 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Custody of minor children - Competence of Child Welfare Committee (CWC) - CWC does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate inter se disputes regarding custody or guardianship between private parties as such authority rests with competent civil court - Jurisdiction of CWC is specifically limited to ‘children in need of care and protection’ and ‘children in conflict with law’ - Proceedings initiated before CWC regarding custody dispute in an unregistered case are void ab initio and liable to be quashed if children do not meet the statutory criteria of the Act. (Paras 19, 20, 23 and 24)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness - Obligation to provide copies of complaints, grant opportunity to file replies, and record statements of affected parties - Failure to follow established procedure vitiates proceedings. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a grandfather, sought custody of his minor grandsons after the death of his son. The respondent mother attempted to initiate custody proceedings before the Child Welfare Committee, despite an existing, final order from a Sub-Divisional Magistrate that maintained the children's custody with the grandfather.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the CWC acted without jurisdiction as the matter was a private custody dispute rather than a matter concerning children in need of care and protection as defined by statute. The proceedings were conducted arbitrarily, without proper registration, and in violation of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the CWC possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate private custody and guardianship disputes and whether the impugned proceedings violated procedural law and natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The CWC is a specialized body under the Juvenile Justice Act limited to specific statutory functions; it cannot function as a civil court for guardianship determination, which is exclusively the domain of civil courts under the Guardians and Wards Act. Furthermore, conducting proceedings in an unregistered manner without providing notice or opportunity for hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice.

Result: Writ petition allowed; proceedings before CWC quashed.

Order on Board

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

08.04.2026

1 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the void ab initio proceedings purportedly initiated under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act of 2015’) by respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 2/Child Welfare Committee, Durg (for short, ‘CWC’), in an unregistered case that is still pending. The challenge is directed against the impugned application dated 25.11.2020 filed by Childline, Durg (Annexure P-1), the impugned letter/notice dated 12.12.2020 bearing reference No. 624/2020 issued through the S.H.O., P.S. Dhamadha (Annexure P-2), and the consequential impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed therein (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner and his minor grandsons were directed to be produced before the CWC. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“A. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the unregistered case from the respondent No.2/CWC for its kind perusal, in the ends of justice.

B. That, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of the unregistered case pending before the respondent No.2/CWC with its consequences being without jurisdiction, illegal, void ab initio, arbitrary and unconstitutional, in the ends of justice.

C. That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned application filed by Childline Durg dated 25.11.2020 on behalf of the respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-1) before the respondent No.2/CWC, impugned letter/ Notice dated 12.12.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2/CWC and notice issued by the SHO, P.S. Dhamadha (Annexure P-2) and the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed in the unregistered case (Annexure P-3), in the ends of justice.

D. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of the petition and any other alternative, additional writ in favour of the petitioner in the ends of justice.”

2 Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner is the grandfather of two minor children, who have been residing with him even during the lifetime of his son, Late Naresh Singh Rajput, who unfortunately expired on 17.12.2019. It is stated that the respondent No. 3, who is the mother of the said minor children, has been residing separately at her parental home and not with the petitioner. The minor children have been continuously under the care and custody of the petitioner and are pursuing their studies in a regular school, where they are stated to be well settled. The petitioner, being a senior citizen and a retired government servant, has been looking after all their educational, emotional and day-to-day needs.

3 It is further the case of the petitioner that prior to the present proceedings, respondent No. 3 had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg (Rural), by initiating proceedings under Sections 97 -98 Cr.P.C., which were registered as Case No. 37/2020. In the said proceedings, a search warrant was also issued; however, upon consideration of the material available on record and the express willingness of the minor children, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 06.03.2020, directed that the custody of the minor children shall continue with the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was further advised to avail appropriate remedy before the competent court having jurisdiction over guardianship matters. The said order has remained unchallenged and has thus attained finality.

4 Subsequently, instead of approaching the competent court of law for adjudication of custody or guardianship, respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings before the Child Welfare Committee, Durg, through an application filed by Childline dated 25.11.2020. Acting upon the said application,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JRam Kumar Singh Rajput – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPC No. 62 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Ram Kumar Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 62 of 2021