Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2661 (ALL)

SHAKTI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-11-17

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record. 2. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Appeal No. 01 of 2016 under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 (Shakti Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) against the order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Bulandshahar in Case No. 315 of 2016 (Lares Vs. State) under Section 31(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction. In this regard, the attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 2(14) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of child), Act 2015 which defines "child in need of care and protection" as follows :- "2. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction. In this regard, the attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 2(14) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of child), Act 2015 which defines "child in need of care and protection" as follows :- "2. (14) "child in need of care and protection" means a child :-- (i) who is found without any home or settled place of abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence; or (ii) who is found working in contravention of labour laws for the time being in force or is found begging, or living on the street; or (iii) who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person-- (a) has injured, exploited, abused or neglected the child or has violated any other law for the time being in force meant for the protection of child; or (b) has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out; or (c) has killed, abused, neglected or exploited some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused, exploited or neglected by that person; or (iv) who is mentally ill or mentally or physically challenged or suffering from terminal or incurable disease, having no one to support or look after or having parents or guardians unfit to take care, if found so by the Board or the Committee; or (v) who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is found to be unfit or incapacitated, by the Committee or the Board, to care for and protect the safety and well-being of the child; or (vi) who does not have parents and no one is willing to take care of, or whose parents have abandoned or surrendered him; or (vii) who is missing or run away child, or whose parents cannot be found after making reasonable inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed; or (viii) who has been or is being or is likely to be abused, tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts; or (ix) who is found vulnerable and is likely to be inducted into drug abuse or trafficking; or (x) who is being or is likely to be abused for unconscionable gains; or (xi) who is victim of or affected by any armed conflict, civil unrest or natural calamity; or (xii) who is at imminent risk of marriage before attaining the age of marriage and whose parents, family members, guardian and any other persons are likely to be responsible for solemnisation of such marriage." 5. Learned counsel has contended that in the present case the "child" namely "Lares" who is the son of revisionist, does not come under any of the aforesaid categories and he cannot be termed as a child in need of care and protection, therefore, neither the Child Welfare Committee had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order regarding custody of child nor the District Magistrate had the power to hear the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Child Welfare Committee. Learned counsel prays that as both the impugned orders have been passed without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that the Child Welfare Committee has passed the impugned order by exercising its jurisdiction in accordance with Section 37 of Juvenile Justice Act and it has not exceeded the jurisdiction. The impugned order has been passed on the application moved by the mother of the child in which she had made an specific allegation that her husband is a cruel person of criminal nature, who has snatched her child from her so her child be given in her custody in order to protect his safety and well being. 7. Considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. According to Section 2 (14) of Juvenile Justice Act, the definition of child in need of care and protection includes a child who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is found to be unfit to care for and protect the safety and well-being of the child. 9. The learned Child Welfare Committee, after calling for a report from the concerned agency and considering the facts that the child was already given into the custody of his mother by the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the Family Court, Bulandshahr and also by the order dated 18.3.2016 passed by Child Welfare Committee and keeping in view the intention and wishes of the child and his welfare, passed the order dated 12.8.2016 against which the revisionist preferred the appeal which was also dismissed by learned District Magistrate on the same grounds. 10. The impugned order shows that the revisionist and his parents have been allowed to meet the child at the interval of three months. If the opposite party no. 10. The impugned order shows that the revisionist and his parents have been allowed to meet the child at the interval of three months. If the opposite party no. 2 is causing any obstruction in meeting of the child with his father and grand parents, the revisionist has the option to move an application before the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr or before the Child Welfare Committee for enforcement of its order. 11. There does not appear any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 12. The revision is accordingly dismissed.