The legal responsibility of guardianship regarding child welfare under the Juvenile Justice Act and implications of abandonment.

ORDER

Dated : 26^th March, 2026 The accused in Crime No.641/2021 of Panoor Police Station filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing all further proceedings against her. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 .

2. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner, who is the mother of two minor children abandoned them and eloped with her paramour and thereby she is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a false case foisted against her at the instance of the 3^rd respondent, who is her husband. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It appears that originally, Crime No.552/2021 of Panoor Police Station was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, regarding the missing of the petitioner. Subsequently the present crime was registered against her on the basis of Annexure A4 complaint given by the 3^rd respondent. In Annexure A4 complaint, it is alleged that while the complainant/3^rd respondent along with the petitioner and their two minor children were living together, she developed intimacy with one Vineesh and since the morning of 30.6.2021, the petitioner was found missing. Thereafter, he came to know that the petitioner eloped with Vineesh. The missing of the petitioner has caused much mental strain and tension to the younger child and after the incident, he was reluctant to concentrate in his studies and he fell down unconscious on seeing the message sent by the petitioner that she is not willing to return back home.

6. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserved Bank of India , 1999 KHC 444 and Kakkovil Mullyarakkal Krishnan Children, Chandramathi v. Kakkovil Muliyarakkal Vilasini (died), 2023 KHC 644, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that father is the natural guardian of the minor and not the mother and as such, a mother cannot be held to be in actual charge of or control over a child so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 75 of the JJ Act.

7. Section 75 of the JJ Act reads as follows :-

75. Punishment for cruelty to child.

Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:

Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.

8. In