JUDGMENT C.M. Totla, J. - Daughter of petitioner, N is lodged at Nari Niketan in terms of Magistreal order dated 5.1.2008 in Criminal Case No. 172/2007. Petitioner requests that order as also affirmed by learned Sessions Judge be set aside and custody of his minor daughter to him directed.2. It appears that in F.I.R. registered for the offences of Sections 376, 363, 366-A I.P.C., on allegations of certain acts for person of N, she in course of investigation brought before Magistreal Court and directed to be lodged at Nari Niketan. Petitioner's application for custody of girl N is rejected by learned Magistrate vide order dated 5.1.2008.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that girl is minor - not of age of sound understanding - only 151/2 years - studying in seventh standard -even if 18, 17 or 16 years of age, still her father who is guardian is entitled to her custody - and no other is claiming to be her guardian. Argued that on the F.I.R. of petitioner in relation to certain acts for his daughter was F.I.R. registered and she was brought before the Court - she was taken away from petitioner's house without his consent - F.I.R. registered for the offences of Sections 363, 366-A I.P.C. - three culprits arrested and charge-sheet submitted for offences of Sections 376, 363, 366 I.P.C. Argued that in such circumstances, desire of child cannot be of any relevance and even if at that time she described as in the impugned order - and disclosed some reluctance to go with father, still in the circumstances, she should have been sent with the father. Argued that in such circumstances and for girl child, particularly un-married one, her desire is insignificant. Submitted that as per impugned order, she is sent to Nari Niketan till she attains majority which means she will have to stay there for long which is not in the interest of child. Lastly submitted that she is in such house for about 11 months and Magistrate ought to have ascertained or sought her wishes some days after the impugned order and now if necessity felt, she be called in the Court. Submitted that considering above, petitioner is entitled to custody of girl as being her father/guardian.4. Lastly submitted that she is in such house for about 11 months and Magistrate ought to have ascertained or sought her wishes some days after the impugned order and now if necessity felt, she be called in the Court. Submitted that considering above, petitioner is entitled to custody of girl as being her father/guardian.4. On behalf of petitioner also submitted that normally in no case even as interim custody, minor should be sent to such house which is atleast some way hampering her liberty. Placing reliance on decision (2001) 4 SCC 71 , R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jayakrishna & Ors. , argued that no other guardian is and he being father, direction should be for custody of girl. Submitted that petitioner shall abide by the conditions including that of in relation to her marriage.5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for the reasons submitted in the order, the learned Magistrate had not other option.6. Considered and perused the impugned order and also copies of police report i.e. challan submitted for the F.I.R.7. As per F.I.R. allegations are of enticingly taking away N by three persons - three persons arrested - statement of N also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - as per her medical examination for age, she at the time of alleged incident comes to be about 1514 years. The impugned order which is upheld in revision finds mention of school certificate - and it definitely seems that she is not described to be a major.8. In the impugned order, very clearly is described that N (i) does not want to remain with her father (ii) alleged that her parents did beat her (iii) also alleges that her parents getting some money wants her to be married to some one (iv) N wanted to go to Nan Niketan (v) N also stated that on being major, she herself will go away from Nan Niketan. The above position is as disclosed by N on 5.1.2008 the date of impugned order.9. So the facts emerging are that N does not want to go with parents - does not want to go with petitioner father - have not stated as to with whom wants to reside - mother or any one else has not come forward - about 11 months she is staying in Nari Niketan which obviously cannot be equated with normal residence.10. If the child is below 18 years and do not want to go with parents for specific reasons, then Social welfare - specifically in relation to juvenile girl/women enactments if any applicable may come in picture.11. Once such enactment appears to be in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Act is applicable in the State of Rajasthan. As per the Juvenile Justice Act, a child is one who has not attained 18 years of age. The Act further also makes some provisions for child in need of care and protection and includes procedure for determining necessary factors as may be relevant to do the needful.12. As per provisions of the Act, child in need of care and protection may be one as per Section 2(d) of the Act which reads that : 2. (d) "child in need of care and protection" means a child - (i) who is found without any home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence, (ia) who is found begging, or who is either a street child or a working child ..... ((ii) to (viii) ..... Relevant provisions appear in Chapter III of the Act and Committee is vested with all authority.13. Given the alleged factors as argued and as described in the impugned order, the above provisions may be applicable. However, applicability or otherwise is to be determined by the appropriate authorities mentioned in the Act. Prima facie, considering impugned order, it may be an appropriate case for consideration as per above and other provisions of the Act. As the child on the basics described in the impugned order is alleged to be below 18 years of age, who does not want to be with her father for the reasons mentioned, the matter may be appropriately examined and dealt with by the Board.14. Accordingly, it is directed that the girl be produced before the Child Welfare Committee for consideration in the light of and as per provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 regarding child in need of care and protection.15. Accordingly, it is directed that the girl be produced before the Child Welfare Committee for consideration in the light of and as per provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 regarding child in need of care and protection.15. The applicability of the Act to be determined by the Committee irrespective of any observations in this order and in such a way as not to be tending to affect other proceedings, particularly in relation to F.I.R. It appears from the impugned order that medical report regarding age and also some school particulars are available.16. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction that the girl be produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Udaipur, on the earliest day of its sitting before 16.12.2008. The Committee shall deal with matter as per provisions of the Act. It is also directed that, if the Committee arrives at conclusion that matter cannot be dealt with under the Act, then the learned Magistrate shall at the earliest again ascertain the wishes of the girl child and shall pass appropriate afresh order. Petition disposed of. *******