The court emphasized the need for caution in handling allegations of child sexual abuse, particularly in custody disputes, and found the allegations to be false and motivated by ulterior motives.

O R D E R

The purpose of marriage is to find happiness and companionship with the partner, and not to perpetuate strife and discord. In other words, marriage is for happiness, and not for fight. Nowadays, if there is any misunderstanding between parties to a marriage, there is a trend for the parties to the marriage to fight between them indefinitely. If children are there in a marital relationship, the custody of the children also will be a weapon for the parties to strengthen their fight. If the parties to the marriage decide that there is no chance for a reunion, a cordial separation with a golden shake hand is preferable. But it seldom happens. The facts in this Criminal Miscellaneous case is an example of the fight of a couple which leads to an awkward situation. This is an unfortunate case in which a small girl aged 3 years is used by her own mother as a weapon to fight against her husband.

2. Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.205/2016 pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Attingal. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 3 , 4 and 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO' Act) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short 'JJ Act').

3. The above case is registered based on a statement given by the 2nd respondent, the mother of the victim. In the above statement, it is stated that the victim is a 3 year old girl child born in the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was working at Ernakulam. The 2nd respondent is well-educated and she completed MBA course. She is working in a company at Kazhakkoottam. It is stated by the 2nd respondent in her complaint to the police that the petitioner visited the family only on Saturdays and Sundays after the marriage because of his job. According to the 2nd respondent, when the petitioner leaves the house after the visit, the minor child shows some special behaviour. According to the 2nd respondent, it is noted by her mother. It is further stated that the minor child used to tell that the husband of the 2nd respondent used to lick on the tongue of the child and the private parts of the child. It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that, he also kissed on those parts of the child. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that at the initial stage, the same was neglected by her. On 05.04.2015, the 2nd respondent found inflammation on the private parts of the child and she asked her minor child about the same. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent came to know that her minor child was sexually abused by the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent started to observe the petitioner when he visited the house. On 19.04.2015, when the petitioner washed the private parts of the child, she started to cry and she didn't allowed to touch the same. Then the 2nd respondent found that there was infection in the private parts. After a week, the infection increased and she met a gynecologist in a private hospital. According to the 2nd respondent, the doctor examined the child and found that there is inflammation. Subsequently, on 25.04.2015, when the petitioner came to the house of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner took the child to the bedroom. According to the 2nd respondent, she closely watched the activities of the petitioner with the child through the window. At that time, she found that the petitioner was sexually abusing the child. The 2nd respondent objected the same. But, it is stated that the petitioner assaulted the 2nd respondent and also threatened that, if she disclosed the same to others he would do away with her. The 2nd respondent informed the same to her father and mother. When the mother of the 2nd respondent asked about the same to the petitioner, the petitioner again shouted towards the mother, is the submission. According to the 2nd respondent, she informed the petitioner that, he cannot touch the child hereinafter and asked him to go awa