Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Liability under Section 75 of JJ Act - The key point is that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, pertains specifically to cruelty to a child by a person having actual charge or control over the child. The section is not applicable if the accused does not have such control or charge. In the context of a mother eloping with another man, the courts have clarified that the offender should be a person, having actual charge or control over the child ["Shyju VS State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]. Therefore, a mother who elopes does not automatically become liable under Section 75 unless she is the person responsible for the child's care and custody.
Mother's elopement and its implications - Several judgments indicate that elopement by a mother with another man, even if it involves abandoning or leaving the children behind, does not necessarily lead to liability under Section 75 of the JJ Act. For instance, in one case, it was held that the petitioner would not come under Section 75 of the JJ Act despite allegations of eloping ["BEN ROY ISAAC vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]. The courts emphasize that liability depends on actual control over the child, not merely on the act of eloping.
Moral judgments versus legal liability - Some judgments discuss the moral aspects of a mother's conduct, such as living in adultery or eloping for pleasure, but clarify that these do not automatically translate into legal liability under juvenile protection laws. The courts have pointed out that a woman who has eloped and spent a night with her consent with a man cannot be legally married to another man and that such acts do not necessarily invoke criminal liability under specific sections unless other statutory criteria are met ["Thokchom Ningol Heisnam Ongbi VS H. Baruniton Singh - Gauhati"].
Criminal liability and related offences - In cases where a mother elopes with another man, she may face criminal charges under various sections, such as Section 75 of the JJ Act or IPC sections like 493 (for illegal marriage) or 376 (for rape), depending on the circumstances. However, liability under Section 75 specifically requires control over the child, which is often not established solely by the act of eloping ["PILLAI SANDEEP GOPINATH vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["ANEESA F vs SHEFEEKMON K.I - Kerala"].
Conclusion - Based on the provided sources, a mother who elopes with another man is not automatically liable under Section 75 of the JJ Act unless she is the person having actual charge or control over the child. The act of eloping alone does not constitute an offence under Section 75 unless coupled with a failure to care for or control the child. Therefore, liability depends on the specific facts of custody and control, not merely on the act of elopement.
References:- ["Shyju VS State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor - Kerala"]- ["BEN ROY ISAAC vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["Thokchom Ningol Heisnam Ongbi VS H. Baruniton Singh - Gauhati"]- ["PILLAI SANDEEP GOPINATH vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["ANEESA F vs SHEFEEKMON K.I - Kerala"]
Imagine a family torn apart: a mother leaves home with another man, leaving her minor children behind. Questions arise—has she abandoned her kids? Can she be criminally prosecuted under India's child protection laws? Specifically, does this scenario trigger liability under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)? This post dives deep into the legal nuances, judicial precedents, and key considerations to clarify this sensitive issue.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.
Section 75 of the JJ Act criminalizes specific acts against a child by someone having care or charge of them. It targets:
These acts must be likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the child. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
The provision requires proof of direct acts causing harm. Mere departure from home, even if called 'elopement,' does not automatically qualify unless linked to suffering. Courts emphasize that liability hinges on evidence of harm, not just the child's voluntary actions like running away. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
The question at hand is straightforward: Mother eloped with another man, whether she is liable to punish u/s 75 of JJ act.
Judicial analysis reveals a clear answer: Generally, no. A mother's elopement alone does not attract Section 75 liability without evidence of assault, abuse, neglect, or acts causing suffering. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
In a pivotal case, the court observed:
There was no assault, abandonment, abuse, or neglect involved in the incident of elopement. The child’s perspective did not indicate suffering or mental trauma caused by the mother. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
The court discharged the mother, prioritizing the mother-child bond and the child's best interests. It noted that prosecuting her could harm the child's emotional well-being. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
Protective Role of Mother: Courts view the mother-child relationship as sacrosanct. Her nurturing role is protected unless proven otherwise. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
Voluntary Elopement by Child: If children elope voluntarily (often due to personal reasons), the mother isn't liable absent coercion or neglect. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
Evidence Requirement: Liability demands specific proof of harm-causing acts. Elopement by itself doesn't suffice. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
Courts consistently quash or discharge proceedings lacking evidence. Here's how related precedents reinforce this:
In a Kerala case, a mother was charged under Section 75 JJ Act and Section 57 of the Kerala Prohibition of Deviant Sexual Behaviour Act for allegedly abandoning her 11-year-old daughter and eloping. The court quashed prosecution after an amicable settlement, noting no evidence of injury to the child and no public interest harmed. JINCY LALJI vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31662
Another ruling clarified that Section 75 applies only to those with actual charge or control over the child. Mere responsibility (e.g., managerial) doesn't suffice without direct involvement. S. C. Narang VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 Supreme(SC) 829 The court stated: by no stretch of imagination, Section 75 of the JJ Act could have been applied against the appellant. S. C. Narang VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 Supreme(SC) 829
In custody disputes, elopement allegations didn't bar maternal rights. One court held: A mother may be morally bad in societal sense, but that mother may be good for child as far as welfare of child is concerned. It granted cyclical custody, emphasizing welfare over moral judgments. Aneesa F VS Shefeekmon K. I - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 338
These cases highlight that child's best interests trump punitive actions without proof. Prosecution is rare and typically quashed if resolved privately. JINCY LALJI vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31662
While unlikely, liability may apply if:
For instance, in probes under Section 156(3) CrPC, courts reject orders if no prima facie case exists, as in a POCSO-related matter where no control or intent was alleged. Jibin Joseph K. A. S/o. K. O. Antony VS Union Territory Of Lakshadweep Rep. By Standing Counsel For Lakshadweep, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 362
Contrastingly, unrelated elopement cases (e.g., adults or non-parents) involve different laws like IPC Sections 366/376 for kidnapping/rape, but not JJ Act parental liability. Khundongbam Joychandra Meitei VS Officer-in-charge, Women Police Station - 2022 Supreme(Manipur) 142
Child Welfare Priority: Courts favor rehabilitation over punishment. Social interventions address root causes like family strife. XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326
Custody and Maintenance: Elopement may impact custody (e.g., deemed unfit), but doesn't automatically mean criminality. JAMSHEENA vs SIRAJUDHEEN - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 703
Unwed Mothers and Adoption: Even in live-in scenarios, parental rights are recognized if consent exists, per JJ Act adoption rules. XXXXXXXXXX VS State Of Kerala - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 426
Families facing such issues should seek mediation, counseling, or family court intervention before escalation.
In conclusion, while elopement raises moral and familial concerns, Section 75 JJ Act liability is generally unlikely absent direct neglect or abuse. Judicial trends protect the mother-child bond, focusing on welfare. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References:- XXX VS State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 326: Core case on no liability for mere elopement.- JINCY LALJI vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31662: Quashing due to settlement.- S. C. Narang VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2025 Supreme(SC) 829: Need for actual control.- Others as cited.
Last updated based on jurisprudence up to October 2023. Laws evolve—verify current status.
#JJAct #ChildRights #FamilyLawIndia
She did not believe the same at first, but later petitioner's uncle also informed her mother that the petitioner had eloped with another girl. ... with another girl. ... with another girl. ... The victim further stated in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that in the month of November, 2021, she came to know through one of her friends that the petitioner had eloped with another girl. ... The learned counsel further submitted that the parents of the petitioner were lit....
The children were left in the custody of the mother. It was the mother, who has been arrayed as the 1st accused, who took the children to the house of his sister and had eloped with another man. ... They are accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 317 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 2. ... I find from the records that it was the mother who had le....
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1154/2024 of Venjaramoodu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8, r/w Section 7, 10 r/w Section 9(1),(n) and (t) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, apart from Section 74, 75(2), 75(1)(i), 76 of the Bharatiya ... It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, pursuant to the man missing complaint, petitioner’s daughter was produced before the learned Magistrate by the Police, after she had elop....
her foster mother. ... The appellant averred in his petition that in or about April 1950, while the respondent was staying with her foster mother at Kondramutla village, she eloped with one Venkatanarasu with whom she was living at Guntur till July 1950 and that some time thereafter -the respondent returned to the place of ... Her case is that she had aa attack of smallpox and after she recovered from the attack, she wanted to return to her husband s house but that the appellant refused to take her unless her foster mother#HL_EN....
In such a situation, the conviction under Section 498 IPC is liable to be set aside. 9. Now the question is whether commission of suicide by Ganga was in any manner abetted by the accused. ... The mother also revealed during cross examination that her daughter had some miseries in her life, or that she had her own reasons to abandon her husband Anilan. Her evidence will indicate that she eloped with the accused due to some matrimonial problems in her life. ... But the question is what drove Ganga to the commission of sui....
of the 1st accused/mother, by the 1st accused. ... In this context, reference to Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is necessary. Section 75 of the JJ Act provides as under: 75. Punishment for cruelty to child. ... Thus, in order to attract offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, the offender should be a person, having actual charge or control over the child and no other person would come within the purvie....
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 , has been incorporated in this case upon the allegation that the petitioner, the mother of a 11 year old female child, had eloped with another person after abandoning her. ... She faces criminal prosecution for the commission of offences under Section 57 of the KP Act, 2011 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 . ... In the above circumstances, the incorporati....
with another man, when the younger child was aged only one year old. ... In short, the petitioner is not a fit mother to get the overnight stay of the children with her. ... The petitioner eloped with 05.02.2018, the petitioner married the aforesaid Anus under the Special Marriage Act ... The police registered a case for man missing against the petitioner p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:395pt
The strained relationship apparently forced the mother to leave the matrimonial home (according to her version). The husband's version is that she eloped with another person. 3. ... Placing reliance on the FIR and the sworn statement given by the mother before the Magistrate, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that she had eloped with another person for pleasure and that the wayward life chosen by her would prejudice the welfare of the children. ... A man or wom....
Placing reliance on the FIR and the sworn statement given by the mother before the Magistrate, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that she had eloped with another person for pleasure and that the wayward life chosen by her would prejudice the welfare of the children. ... The strained relationship apparently forced the mother to leave the matrimonial home (according to her version). The husband's version is that she eloped with another person. 3. ... A man or wom....
10. We, however, make it clear that the observations and the findings recorded herein are only for the purposes of examining the case of the appellant. What is held in this order will have no bearing on the pending case before the Special Court, and all questions in that regard are left open. 9. Therefore, taking the case made out by the State as well as the second respondent as correct, by no stretch of imagination, Section 75 of the JJ Act could have been applied against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24th December, 2020, passed by the Special Court, as well as the impu....
The order does not reflect the reason to order investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. As stated already, the offences alleged against the petitioner are u/s 11(iv) of the POCSO Act and S.75 of the JJ Act. The allegation is that the petitioner who was the Additional Prosecutor in charge of the conduct of the case of the victim frequently contacted the victim girl residing in the Working Women’s Hostel over phone. Similarly, to attract the offence u/s 75 of the JJ Act, the accused must have actual control or charge over the child. As per S.11 of the POCSO Act, ....
It is the time when she exercises the option on conception that reckons a child is born to a married couple or unmarried couple. If at the time of conception, she has not recognized the right of fatherhood, in the context of JJ Act, a man has no right to recognize himself as the biological father, except with her consent and; she continues to be recognized as an unwed mother for the purpose of JJ Act. Once a woman acknowledges the biological father that cannot be questioned to deny the right of biological father on the ground of want of legal marriage.
The mother of the victim girl also eloped with another person. At the time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl is only 10 years and she was studying in IV standard. She has deposed that her son-in-law got remarried and her grand daughter is under her care and custody. The appellant is the son of their house owner where they were residing at the time of occurrence.
Thereafter the appellant along with them shifted their residence to appellant's parents' home. The appellant and his brother did not get along well together and hence the appellant constructed a shed in the property belonging to his father and started residing there with PW-2 and her brothers. She deposed that a few years back, her mother eloped with a man from Konni leaving herself and her two younger brothers with her father, who is the appellant/accused herein.
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
