JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking custody of his daughter, namely, Rishita Mohanty by the Petitioner and to quash the proceeding pending before the Child Welfare Committee (for short, ‘the ‘CWC’). 2. Marriage between Sri Deepak Mohanty (the petitioner) and Deepanjali Ray (now deceased) was solemnized on 02.12.2007. Out of their wedlock, Rishita was born on 18.04.2011. Unfortunately, said Deepanjali suffered from Carcinoma of Stomach and ultimately succumbed to the illness on 03.12.2015 at about 4.15 PM at H.C.G. Hospital, Bengaluru. The relatives of Deepanjali had been to Bengaluru at the time of her death. While the petitioner accompanied the dead body of his wife-Deepanjali, his daughter was left with Smt. Kalpana Ray (sister of his wife) (Opposite Party No.5) and other in-laws. Smt. Kalpana Ray along with others left Bengaluru at 11.0 AM on 05.12.2015 with Rishita, whereas the petitioner left Bengaluru with the corpus of his wife via Indigo Flight 6E646 at about 4.55 PM. On 06.12.2015, the petitioner reached his residence at Surya Vihar, Aurnoday Market, Cuttack with the corpus of his wife. His daughter-Rishita stayed with his in-laws at Sagadia Sahi, Ranihat, Cuttack. 3. It is contended by the petitioner in the Writ Petition that on 06.12.2015 when the members of his in-laws’ family visited the house of the Petitioner to pay respect to deceased Deepanjali, he asked Opposite Party No.5, the sister of his wife about Rishita. Opposite Party No.5 assured to hand over Rishita to the petitioner after the obsequies of Deepanjali is over. After the obsequies, when the petitioner asked about Rishita, he was told by his mother in-law that Rishita would stay with them for some more days. 4. While the matter stood thus, the father of the petitioner, namely, Indramani Mohanty, received a notice from the CWC (Opposite Party No.7) on 07.01.2015 in Case No.1812 of 2015 asking the petitioner to appear before the CWC on 8th January, 2016 at 12 noon (Annexure-4). The notice was relating to his minor daughter-Rishita Mohanty. As the petitioner was serving at Bengaluru, his father, Indramani Mohanty, appeared on the schedule date and time and filed an application (Annexure-5) narrating the fact and praying one month’s time for appearance of his son before the CWC. The notice was relating to his minor daughter-Rishita Mohanty. As the petitioner was serving at Bengaluru, his father, Indramani Mohanty, appeared on the schedule date and time and filed an application (Annexure-5) narrating the fact and praying one month’s time for appearance of his son before the CWC. He also contended that the matter relating to Rishita does not come under the purview of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (For short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the ‘CWC’ on 06.04.2016 and requested to take custody of his child (Annexure-6). On the same day, he also prayed for supply of copy of the order sheet of the proceeding in Case No.1812 of 2015 pending before the CWC. The petitioner on subsequent dates prayed for supply of copy of the complaint on the basis of which Case No.1812 of 2015 has been initiated, copy of the order sheets of the said proceeding and also custody of the child. Alleging inaction of the CWC, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. This Court by order dated 13.05.2016 issued notice to the opposite parties 4 to 6, who are in-laws of the petitioner and notice on opposite parties 1 to 3 and 7 was accepted by the Additional Government Advocate. In course of the proceeding, this Court vide order dated 21.06.2016, while allowing the petitioner and his relatives to visit the child between 8.00 AM to 5.00 PM, directed all the proceedings including the one pending before the CWC (CWC Case No.1812 of 2015) to be kept in abeyance. Vide order dated 03.08.2016, this Court directed the parties along with the child to appear in person on 05.08.2016. Pursuant to said direction, Rishita was produced before this Court on 05.08.2016 by Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6. On that date, the child, namely, Rishita was handed over to her father (the petitioner). Since the in-laws of the petitioner alleged careless attitude of the petitioner towards his wife when she was ill and battling for life and expressed concern about welfare of the child, as the father (the petitioner) is in gainful employment in an I.T. Company, this Court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit and to give an undertaking to make his daughter as a beneficiary of the property he is possessing. Further, taking note of the concern of the in-laws of the petitioner in respect of ornaments of deceased Deepanjali, this Court directed the petitioner to give an undertaking that the ornaments of deceased Deepanjali would be given to Rishita. The petitioner was also directed to enclose the list of ornaments of his wife to make sure that those ornaments are kept for the child. The matter was next posted to 10.08.2016. The petitioner in obedience to the direction dated 05.08.2016, appeared in person along with Rishita and filed an affidavit dated 09.08.2016, which is at Flag-D. Said affidavit dated 09.08.2016 reveals as follows: “(8) That for the welfare of the child (daughter), the father (petitioner) of the child has taken following steps. (a) Petitioner has kept Rs.1.5 lakhs in shape of fixed deposit in SBI Main Branch, Cuttack in the name of his daughter Rishita Mohanty. Photocopy of the fixed deposit receipt is annexed here unto as Annexure-15. (b) The petitioner has also deposited Rs.1.5 lakh in Sukanya Samrudhi plan in the name of her daughter Rishita Mohanty, in SBI Main Branch, Cuttack. Photo copy of the said certificate is annexed herewith as Annexure-16. (c) The petitioner has made Life Insurance Policy vide Policy No.559352435, dated 28.04.2016, making the child Rishita as nominee. Petitioner is depositing Rs.20,295/- towards the Annual Premium of the said policy. (d) The petitioner has made Life Insurance Policy vide Policy No.559353102, dated 09.05.2016, in the name of Rishita Mohanty, Petitioner is depositing Rs.33,163/-towards the Annual Premium of the said policy. (e) The petitioner has made Life Insurance Policy vide Policy No.597022372, dated 28.12.2015, in the name of Rishita Mohanty, Petitioner is depositing Rs.11,228/- towards the Annual Premium of the said policy. (f) The petitioner has made Life Insurance Policy vide Policy No.597022370, on 28.12.2015, in the name of Rishita Mohanty, Petitioner is depositing Rs.10,924/- towards the Annual Premium of the said policy. (9) That with regard to the security of the child Rishita Mohanty, the petitioner hereby undertake to devote more time for his daughter and at the same time, he will take his parents and sister periodically to fulfill the desires of his daughter and also for her care and security. (9) That with regard to the security of the child Rishita Mohanty, the petitioner hereby undertake to devote more time for his daughter and at the same time, he will take his parents and sister periodically to fulfill the desires of his daughter and also for her care and security. (10) That with regards to beneficiary in respect of the property (house situated at Sumukha Kalpavruksha, Kodichikanahalli Main Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560076) which the petitioner purchased incurring loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited, Bangalore. It is submitted that the petitioner is yet to deposit about Rs.34,73,335.92 lakhs out of the total amount of Rs.39 lakhs (Cost of the flat) towards the loan amount to LIC Housing Finance Limited, Bangalore. The petitioner hereby undertake to take step to record the name of his daughter Rishita Mohanty in the place of his deceased wife late Deepanjali Ray and will take step to keep the minor daughter (Rishita Mohanty) one of the beneficiary of the said property. (11) That with regard to the ornaments of the late Deepanjali Ray, it is humbly submitted that the entire ornaments including the gifts given by our family members at the time of marriage, are all in the Locker No. 341 of Central Bank of India, Buxi Bazar Cuttack in the joint name of the petitioner and late Deepanjali Ray (Wife). Petitioner has never operated the said locker. On the allegation of Abanindra Ray (Opp Party No.4), the said locker has been seized by Mahila Police Station, Cuttack in the GR Case No.2138/15. As such this Hon’ble High Court may pass appropriate order to open the locker and make a list of ornaments in the presence of the branch manager and there after said ornaments be kept in the same locker authorizing the petitioner to operate the locker and keep the same for the future of his daughter Rishita Mohanty. The petitioner hereby undertake after opening the locker, he will make a list of ornaments in the presence of the branch manager and there after said ornaments be kept in the same locker for his daughter Rishita Mohanty. The Opp. Party No.4 to 6 may be directed to return the PAN Card of the petitioner and the mobile of late Deepanjali Ray (wife of the petitioner) which was taken away by O.P. No.5 at the time of death of petitioner’s wife.” 6. The Opp. Party No.4 to 6 may be directed to return the PAN Card of the petitioner and the mobile of late Deepanjali Ray (wife of the petitioner) which was taken away by O.P. No.5 at the time of death of petitioner’s wife.” 6. Perused the case record in CWC Case No. 1812 of 2015 and the materials produced before us including the affidavit dated 5.8.2016 filed by the opposite party no. 6 as well as the affidavit dated 9.8.2016 filed by the petitioner. 7. The Child Welfare Committee is defined under Section 2 (22) of the Act. It means a Committee constituted under Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act provides that the State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette constitute for every district, one or more Child Welfare Committee for exercising the powers and to discharge the duties conferred on such Committee in relation to children in need of care and protection under this Act. “Child in need of Care and Protection” has been defined in Section 2 (14) of the Act. It means a child, who is covered under the underlying conditions mentioned in the said provision of the Act. The case in hand is not covered under any of the conditions as provided under Section 2 (14) of the Act. Further, Section 28 of the Act provides the procedure to be followed by the CWC. Section 30 of the Act provides functions and responsibilities of the CWC. Sub-section (i) of Section 30 of the Act provides that the functions and responsibilities of the CWC shall include conducting enquiry on all issues relating to and affecting the safety and well-being of the children under the Act. Sub-Section (iv) of Section 30 of the Act relates to conducting enquiry for declaring fit persons for care of children in need of care and protection. Section 31 of the Act deals with production of the child in need of care and protection before the CWC. Section 37 of the Act deals with orders to be passed regarding a child in need of care and protection. It provides that for passing an order regarding a child in need of care and protection, a declaration to that effect has to be made. Section 37 of the Act deals with orders to be passed regarding a child in need of care and protection. It provides that for passing an order regarding a child in need of care and protection, a declaration to that effect has to be made. Sub-section (b) of Section 37 provides restoration of the child to parents or guardian or family with or without supervision of Child Welfare Officer or designated social worker. Apparently, before making an order under Section 37 of the Act, principle of natural justice has not been followed. Copies of the complaint petition as well as order sheets in CWC Case No. 1812 of 2015 were not supplied in spite of the petitioner repeatedly asking for the same. It further reveals that though in the proceeding dated 16.12.2015, the CWC observed that the petitioner was staying at Bengaluru, yet notice under Annexure-4 was sent in his Cuttack address, which was received by his father. Petition for custody of Rishita was not considered by the CWC in spite of repeated request of the petitioner, who is none other than the father of the child (Rishita). Further, no material is placed before this Court to show that Rishita is a child in need of care and protection as provided under the Act. It is further astonishing that the child (Rishita) was handed over to a person, namely, Ritanjali Ray-opposite party no. 6, who ordinarily resides at Chennai beyond the jurisdiction of CWC. The opposite party no. 6 appeared before this Court pursuant to the notice issued and filed an affidavit indicating therein that the child (Rishita) has been admitted to Chettinad Bidya Ashram, Aera Purram, Chennai. From the note sheet dated 16.12.2015 in CWC Case No. 1812 of 2015, it reveals that the child was produced before the CWC on 16.12.1015 by Abanindra Ray-opposite party no. 4. His father, Rabindra Kumar Ray filed an application on that date for care, protection and rehabilitation of female child (Rishita) under Section 32 (1) of the Act. On the request of opposite party no. 6, the CWC declared her as the fit person and Rishita was restored to her (opposite party no. 6) to which her family members, namely, Rabnindra Kumar Ray, Anjali Ray, Kabita Ray, Prativa Ray, Abanindra Ray and Manash Kumar Ray have no objection. Before restoring the child (Rishita) to opposite party no. On the request of opposite party no. 6, the CWC declared her as the fit person and Rishita was restored to her (opposite party no. 6) to which her family members, namely, Rabnindra Kumar Ray, Anjali Ray, Kabita Ray, Prativa Ray, Abanindra Ray and Manash Kumar Ray have no objection. Before restoring the child (Rishita) to opposite party no. 6, the CWC had not made any enquiry. Thus, the conclusion that there is nobody in the house of the petitioner to look after the child (Rishita) was without any basis. Thereafter, the case was posted to different dates. On 6.5.2016, the petition filed by the petitioner for restoration of the child to him was taken up for consideration, but no order was passed on the same. As no order was passed within a reasonable period, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 8. On perusal of the case records of CWC No. 1812 of 2015, it reveals that the enquiry conducted by CWC was dehors of requirements of Section 36 (1) of the Act. Though the District Child Protection Officer, Cuttack was directed to conduct an enquiry as required under Section 36(1) of the Act, he never felt it necessary at least to deliberate with the petitioner and his family members. In that view of the matter, the enquiry conducted by the CWC is perfunctory and thus, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Further, on perusal of the affidavit dated 9.8.2016 filed by the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner being the natural and lawful guardian is the best person to take care of the child. The steps taken by the petitioner as stated in the affidavit (quoted supra) reveal that the petitioner is very much concerned about future and welfare of his daughter, namely, Rishita. We would like, at this stage, to note that in our witnessing when the child was handed over to the father, she so tightly embraced him that in spite of respondent’s call she not even for a moment left the neck embracing of her father and since the moment of climbing in his lap she never turned her face towards anybody else which gesture assured us about the loving bondage which exists between the father and the daughter and separation of both would have been the most scurrilous cruelty to her. We, therefore, unhesitatingly hold that the benefit of the girl, daughter which is the ultimate and utmost consideration lies with the petitioner father. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court passes the following order: (i) Rishita, the minor daughter of the petitioner shall be in custody of the petitioner and he will take all possible steps for care, protection and welfare of the child as per the undertaking filed in shape of an affidavit dated 09.08.2016 before this Court; (ii) The proceedings before the CWC, Cuttack in CWC Case No.1812/2015 is quashed; (iii) Respondents will have the same visitation rights as has been given to the father by our order dated 21.06.2016. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinod Prasad, J. I agree.