ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the impugned directions dated 20.05.2019 and 12.07.2019 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Udaipur (‘the CWC’), whereby the SHO, Police Station, Bhupalpura has been directed to produce the petitioner’s son before the Committee on 24.05.2019 and the SHO has been informed that the respondent No.3 has been granted permission to meet his son-Granth and, therefore, the child be permitted to meet his father every Sunday for three hours at Mother Teresa Home, Bhupalpura, respectively. 2. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 got married on 13.07.2016. It is alleged that the relations between the petitioner and her family and the respondent No.3 and his family on account of demand of dowry etc., resulted in discord, however, a male child Granth was born to the couple on 11.10.2017, which child presently is with the petitioner-Mother. 3. It is further alleged that the respondent No.3 tried to forcibly take away the child from the petitioner’s custody, on account of which, he was bound by the police under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, which resulted in registration of FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, however, a negative report was given by the police, against which, protest petition filed by the petitioner is pending. 4. It is also alleged that on account of the marital discord, resulting in initiation of various proceedings/counter proceedings, the respondent No.3 filed an application (Annex.-3) on 20.05.2019 before the CWC, inter alia, seeking custody of the child and access (meeting rights). On the same day itself, the SHO, Police Station Bhupalpura was directed to produce the child before the CWC on 24.05.2019. 5. From the record, it appears that the child was not produced before the CWC on 24.05.2019 and 27.05.2019 and, therefore, the matter was fixed on 29.05.2019, on which date the child was produced, when observations were made by the Committee that the child played with the relatives i.e. parents and sister of respondent No.3 and appeared happy, the CWC attempted to mediate between the parties, when time was sought and, therefore, the parties were directed to remain present on 26.06.2019. 6. 6. In the meanwhile, on 28.05.2019, in the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, notices were ordered to be issued and till further orders, it was directed that the custody of the child shall remain with the petitioner. 7. The petitioner thereafter did not appear before the CWC on 26.06.2019 when the respondent No.3 filed another application again seeking custody. Whereafter, it appears that by order dated 12.07.2019, direction was issued to the SHO, Police Station Bhupalpura indicating permission having been granted to respondent No.3 to meet his son and it was directed that in the presence of SHO, every Sunday, the child would meet his father at Mother Teresa Home, Bhupalpura. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application with an ulterior motive has been filed by the respondent No.3 before the CWC only with a view to misuse the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the Act’), as a counter blast against the petitioner. 9. Submissions have been made that a bare look at the application filed clearly indicates that the application has been filed to seek the custody and access to the child, which jurisdiction lies with the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The application is essentially an abuse of the process of the law. 10. Further submissions have been made that the material produced by the respondent No.3 in response to the writ petition pertains to the period 2017, which though disputed, cannot form the basis for passing of the order impugned. 11. Submissions have been made that the proceedings before the CWC are wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the reliefs sought pertain to jurisdiction of courts under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (collectively ‘Hindu Laws’) and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and, therefore, the application in this regard, could not have been entertained by the CWC. 12. Reference has been made to various provisions of Hindu Laws and Section 20 of the Family Courts Act to emphasize that the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Family Court. 13. It is also submitted that the case has been falsely sought to be brought within the provisions of the Act by claiming the child as a ‘child in need of care and protection’ and, therefore, the directions issued deserve to be quashed and set aside. 13. It is also submitted that the case has been falsely sought to be brought within the provisions of the Act by claiming the child as a ‘child in need of care and protection’ and, therefore, the directions issued deserve to be quashed and set aside. 14. It was emphasized that the CWC did not follow the procedure prescribed, inasmuch as, the provisions contained in Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2017 (‘the Rules’) were violated, besides which there is no provision applicable to the circumstances. 15. Without prejudice to the submissions pertaining to jurisdiction, it was submitted that the proceedings before the CWC lapsed once the child was produced before the CWC on 29.05.2019 as on production, the CWC is required to pass an order under Section 36 of the Act. Once on 29.05.2019, the child on production was found to be not in need of care and protection, there was no occasion to then keep the proceedings pending and, thereafter pass orders of the nature, which are under challenge. It was prayed that the petition be allowed and the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 16. Reliance was place on Geetanjali Dogra v. State & Ors., CM(M) No. 1140/2018, decided on 06.09.2019 by Delhi High Court; Priya Yadav v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. No. 6163/2016, decided on 23.11.2016 by M.P. High Court; Tasleema Begum v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 19557 (w) of 2017, decided on 04.01.2018 by Calcutta High Court; K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573 and K.K. Swaminathan v. Srinivasagam, 2003 (4) CTC 347. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the entire conduct of the petitioner qua the child has been atrocious and the respondent No.3-father of the child, was attempting to secure the safety and well-being of his minor child, who is only aged about 2 years. 18. Submissions have been made that sufficient material was available before the CWC while passing the order for production of the child and, thereafter, while passing the orders for access of the child, which orders don’t call for any interference. 19. 18. Submissions have been made that sufficient material was available before the CWC while passing the order for production of the child and, thereafter, while passing the orders for access of the child, which orders don’t call for any interference. 19. Submissions have been made that the CWC has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters, relating to a child in need of care and protection and under Section 2(14) of the Act, the child, whose parent is unfit to ensure his safety or well-being, would be a child in need of care and protection. Section 30 of the Act provides that the CWC can take cognizance of the matter even suo motu and may reach out to the child in need of care and protection. Further, under Rule 19 of the Rules, the CWC can direct the police officers for carrying out its mandate and power lies with the CWC for placing the child with any fit person in safe custody. 20. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable on account of various alternative remedies available to the petitioner under Sections 101, 102 and 104 of the Act and/or provisions of Cr.P.C. 21. Submissions have also been made that as the CWC has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in question, the interference of this Court in the circumstances, is not called for. 22. It was further submitted that in view of non-obstente clause under Section 29 of the Act, the Act being subsequent to the Family Courts Act, the same would prevail. 23. On the merits, it was submitted that the petitioner has deliberately failed to appear before the CWC and has denied adjudication by the Competent Authority and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 24. Reliance was place on Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. & Anr., (2019) 17 SCALE 85 ; Kumari Khusboo Rathaur v. State of UP & Ors., Habeas Corpus No. 19211/2019, decided on 16.07.2019 by Allahabad High Court; Sebati Padhi & Anr. v. Child Welfare Committee & Ors., 2013 Cri.L.J. 3500; Munira Siddiqi & Anr. v. Mustafa Aleem Siddiqi & Ors., 2009 SCC Online Del. 1505; Murugan v. Child Welfare Committee, 2009 SCC Online Ker. 5838; Sumtibai & Ors. v. Paras Finance Co., (2007) 10 SCC 82 ; Tasleema Begum v. State of W.B. & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Cal. v. Child Welfare Committee & Ors., 2013 Cri.L.J. 3500; Munira Siddiqi & Anr. v. Mustafa Aleem Siddiqi & Ors., 2009 SCC Online Del. 1505; Murugan v. Child Welfare Committee, 2009 SCC Online Ker. 5838; Sumtibai & Ors. v. Paras Finance Co., (2007) 10 SCC 82 ; Tasleema Begum v. State of W.B. & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Cal. 661 and Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. UOI & Anr., (2014) 214 DLT 1 . 25. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 26. The facts are not in dispute that there has been a marital discord between the parties, resulting in various criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner and by the respondent No.3. 27. During the course of the said proceedings, the present application came to be filed by the respondent No.3 before the CWC, inter alia, seeking custody of the child and access. The allegations pertained to the behaviour of the petitioner post the honeymoon period and/or after she got pregnant. Allegations were made that the petitioner threatened to kill the child; presently she was living at her parental home, where the child was being harassed and is beaten up. It was alleged that the petitioner was not permitting the minor child to meet respondent No.3; the child was not well and is in need of the natural love, affection and care of his father. The future of the child is in danger and based on the said averments, the reliefs for custody and visitation rights/access were sought. 28. It was alleged that the petitioner was not permitting the minor child to meet respondent No.3; the child was not well and is in need of the natural love, affection and care of his father. The future of the child is in danger and based on the said averments, the reliefs for custody and visitation rights/access were sought. 28. The relevant portion of the application, reads as under:- ^^3- ;g fd foi{kh vPNs l{ke ifjokj dh vkSj mPp f'kf{kr gksus ds ckotwn viuk xqLlk uotkr ij fudkyrh jgh gSA xHkkZoLFkk esa mls ekjus ds fy;s gkjihd dk lsou dj fy;kA OgkVl vi izkFkhZ dks dbZ ckj uotkr dks ekj Mkyus dh /kefd;ka nhA vHkh yEcs le; ls og izkFkhZ dk ?kj vkSj llqjky NksM+dj cPps dks ysdj ihgj pyh vkbZ gS vkSj ckyd dks fnu Hkj ?kj ds vkgrs esa yxs >wys esa NksM+dj foi{kh o mldk ifjokj vUnj ,s'kks vkjke ls thou ;kiu dj jgs gSA ckyd xehZ esa csgn ijs'kku Hkh gksrk gSA foi{kh us izkFkhZ ds i{k dh efgykvksa dks vi'kCn dgrs gq, viekfur djus yx xbZ gSA 4- ;g fd foi{kh us izkFkhZ dk ?kj NksM+dj vius ihgj esa dbZ ckj ukckfyx cPps dks ijs'kku fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ ls mldk cPpk tcju fNu j[kk gS vkSj foi{kh cPps dks dejs esa cUn dj nsrh vkSj mlds lkFk csjgeh ls ekjihV djrh gSA 5- ;g fd foi{kh vk;s jkst izkFkhZ dks rkus vkSj ifr dh csjgeh ls ekjihV djus dh vkfn gks xbZ gSA izkFkhZ ijs'kku gksdj Hkh foi{kh vkSj cPps ls csgn I;kj djrk gSA blfy;s foi{kh dh xyfr;ksa dks lgu djrk jgk gSA foi{kh ihgj esa jgus ds ckotwn izkFkhZ dks NksVh&NksVh ckrksa ij mlds lkFk >xM+k djus dh /kefd;k nsrh] izkFkhZ dks vius vius ekrk&firk vkSj cgu ls nqj jgus dh /kefd;ka nsdj muls ckrphr ugha djus nsrhA 'kadkyw izo`fr dh gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds ifjtuksa ds ckjs esa vi'kCn dg dj xkyh&XykSt djrh gSA 6- ;g fd foi{kh izkFkhZ dks mlds ukckfyx iq= ls feyus ugha ns jgh gS vkSj mls tcju vius dCts esa j[k j[kk gS] ftlls cPps dh rfc;r yxkrkj [kjkc gksrh jgh gS vkSj mls firk ds uSlfxZad I;kj o izkd`frd Lusg o fir`Ro lq[k vkSj ns[kHkky ,oa lja{k.k dh rRdky ,oa fo'ks"k vko';drk gSA 7- ;g fd izkFkhZ ds iq= dh vR;Ur NksVs gksus ls mls dkuwuu vkSj uSlfxZd ekrk&firk ds ns[kHkky ,oa laj{k.k dh vko';drk gS rFkk NksVs gksus ds dkj.k mldh ns[kHkky firk ls csgrj dksbZ O;fDr ugha dj ldrk gSA vYik;q esa gksus ds dkj.k iy&iy esa mls firk ds ns[kHkky] mldh ekfy'k] fu;fer nokbZ;ksa vkSj lkQ&lQkbZ dh vko';drk gSA 8- ;g fd foi{kh xqLlS dh vkfn gS vkSj izkbZosV ukSdjh dk dk;Z djrh gS] mls ?k.Vksa dke esa Hkh jguk iM+rk gSA bl dkj.k mlds lkfu/; esa ml ukckfyx cPps dk iw.kZr;k ijofj'k ugha gks ldrh gS tks mlds Hkfo"; ij cqjk vlj Mky jgk gS vkSj mlds lkFk dHkh ns[kHkky ds vHkko esa dksbZ Hkh vfiz; ?kVuk ?kV ldrh gSA 9- ;g fd foi{kh ?kqeus fQjus vkSj nqljh efgykvksa ls lEidZ djus rFkk lks'ky lkbZV ij ?k.Vksa pSV djus dh vkfn gS] blfy;s og ukckfyx cPps dks fcuk fdlh lgkjs ds NksM ldrh gS] ftlls mlds Hkfo"; ij ladV mRiUu gks jgk gSA 10- ;g fd cky dY;k.k lfefr] mn;iqj uotkr ls ysdj 18 o"kZ rd ds ckydksa ds fy;s dk;Z djrh gS vkSj cPpksa ds fgr dks ns[krh gSA bl dkj.k izkFkhZ vkids le{k ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj jgh gSA vr% cky dY;k.k lfefr] U;k;ihB ls fuosnu gS fd vki izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= dks vfoyEc Lohdkj Qjekdj rRdky esjs ukckfyx cPps dks foi{kh ds dCts ls izkIr dj eq> izkFkhZ dks fliqnZ djkus rFkk feyokus dk vkns'k iznku djkosA fnukad & 20@05@2019 LFkku & mn;iqj lgh@& gLrk{kj** 29. A bare look at the above contents of the application would reveal that the respondent No.3, though made several allegations against the petitioner, he did not indicate the facts about launching of the criminal cases by each other. 30. Apparently, once the respondent No.3 had chosen to indicate events since marriage, there was no reason to not indicate the criminal proceedings taken against each other before the CWC. The CWC, based on the averments on the same day, required, the SHO to rescue the child and produce him before them on 24.05.2019. The child was ultimately produced on 29.05.2019. The proceedings dated 29.05.2019, are most relevant, which reads as under:- ^^29-05-19 izkFkhZ va'kqy fla?koh e; ifjokj mifLFkrA foi{kh uhye e; uotkr xazFk fla?koh ds lkFk mifLFkrA Hkqikyiqjk Fkkuk ls ,plh fd'kuflag e; efgyk dkUlVscy eatw ¼1797½ mifLFkr o rgjhj dh ikyuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dhA foi{kh ds lkFk U;k;fe= enu flag pkSgku o ekrk o HkkbZ mifLFkrA nksuksa i{kks dks [kqyh U;k;ihB ds le{k xazFk ds lkFk NksMk x;k tgka ckyd xzaFk lcls gal cksy dj [kqy dj [ksykA ckyd us firk lfgr nknk&nknh] Hkqvk o vU; dks igpkuk o muds lkFk gh csgn [kq'k utj vk;kA izkFkhZ o foi{kh dh nksuksa i{kksa dh U;k;ihB lnL;ksa us le>kbZ'k dhA nksuksa dks ikfjokfjd :i ls lkFk jgus rFkk ckyd dks tSfod ekrk&firk ds lkFk lHkh ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa ds uSlfxZd Lusg izse o I;kj dh vko';drk ds vuq:i le>k;k x;kA nksuksa i{kksa dh le>kbZ'k ds ckn nksuksa us le; pkgkA cPpksa ds loksZRre fgr dks r; djus okyh U;k;ihB us nksuksa i{kks dks mifLFkr jgus ds funsZ'k fn,A foi{kh dks vkxkeh 26-06-2019 dks e; cPps mifLFkr jgus dks ikcUn fd;k tks mlus gkeh HkjhA lgh@&** 31. In the above order-sheet, qua the child, the indications have been made that when the child was produced, about his mingling with the family of respondent No.3 and that he was very happy with them and, thereafter, the attempts having been made by the CWC for the parents to live together, for which, time was sought and, thereafter, directions were given to remain present on 26.06.2019. 32. 32. As apparently, the petitioner questioned the validity of the proceedings before the CWC by filing the present writ petition, and interim order protecting the custody of the child with her was passed by this Court, the petitioner thereafter did not appear before the CWC and didn't follow the instructions pertaining to the visitation rights granted by the CWC to the father every Sunday. 33. The provisions of Section 30 of the Act deals with functions and responsibilities of the CWC, which inter alia include under clause (ii) conducting inquiry on all issues relating to and affecting the safety and well-being of the children under the Act and under clause (xii) taking suo motu cognizance of cases and reaching out to children in need of care and protection, who were not produced before the CWC. 34. The term ‘child in need of care and protection’ has been defined under Section 2(14) of the Act and inter alia, under clause (iii) (b) includes a child, who resides with a person whether a guardian of the child or not and such person has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out. 35. In view of the allegations made in the application, though quite sketchy and despite the fact that the respondent No.3 had suppressed the inter se criminal proceedings initiated by the parties, the averments made in the application irrespective of the fact that the relief claimed in the application pertained to the custody/access to the child, were sufficient for the CWC to take cognizance of the said application in view of the express provisions of Section 30(ii) and (xii) read with Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act and, therefore, apparently, it cannot be said that the application was not maintainable and/or the CWC lacks jurisdiction. 36. 36. As no final order, accepting the application filed by the respondent No.3 pertaining to grant of custody, as prayed has been passed, at this stage, it is too premature to examine as to whether in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Family Courts Act read with provisions of Hindu Laws and Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the CWC, would be barred or in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Act, the CWC would have jurisdiction in the matter for the purpose of handing over the custody to a fit person as envisaged by provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, and, therefore, the said aspect is kept open, in case, any occasion arises. 37. The procedure, prescribed under the Rules on production of the child before the CWC has been prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules and the procedure for inquiry has been prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules. The provisions of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 21 of the Rules, reads as under:- “(4) The Committee after interaction with the child may issue directions for placing the child with the parent or guardian or Children’s Home, where such Home is available in the vicinity of the Committee before which the child is produced, and in the absence of such Home, to direct the placing of the child in safe custody of a fit person or a fit facility.” 38. A perusal of the above Rule indicates that on production before the CWC, the CWC after interaction with the child, can issue direction for placing the child with the parent or guardian. 39. A perusal of the proceedings dated 29.05.2019 quoted hereinbefore would reveal that once the CWC sought production of the child before it based on the contents of the complaint made by the respondent No.3, it was required of the CWC to first and foremost record its finding pertaining to the status of the child, instead it, simply recorded the fact that the child was left to mingle with the family of respondent No.3, with whom, he appeared very happy. 40. 40. The very fact that the observations have been made that the child played a lot and was looking very happy, necessarily means that he was physically fit and the apprehensions expressed/allegations made by the respondent No.3 qua the status of the child and he being abused by the petitioner, were apparently factually missing, else the CWC would not have made the said observations. However, it appears that thereafter the CWC, attempted to mediate between the parties purportedly for the well-being of the child and the parties sought time when the next date was fixed on 26.06.2019 and the petitioner was directed to remain present with the child. 41. From the sequence of events as noticed in the order-sheet, it appears that instead of inquiring about the safety and well-being of the child, the CWC attempted to resolve the dispute between the parties, which apparently is not the function/responsibility entrusted to the CWC under Section 30 of the Act. 42. The passing of the order dated 12.07.2019, though not available on record, however, the requisition sent to the SHO for arranging a weekly meeting every Sunday between the respondent No.3 and the child, is available on record as Annex.-6, which indicates the CWC having passed directions for keeping the child present every Sunday for three hours for meeting with the father. The source for passing of the said order by the CWC, in the provisions of the Act or the Rules, has not been cited either during the course of submissions or in the written submissions filed by the respondents. 43. The source for passing of the said order by the CWC, in the provisions of the Act or the Rules, has not been cited either during the course of submissions or in the written submissions filed by the respondents. 43. Looking to the overall scheme of the provisions as noticed hereinbefore, the CWC is required to immediately act on an information received pertaining to a child in need of care and protection as per the Act; whereafter, the action in terms of the Act, has to be swift and the CWC is required to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by the Act and the Rules and can’t at its whims continue with the proceedings either seeking to conciliate between the parties, which normally would be in a case, where the dispute is between the parents of the child in question and in rest of the cases, such situation would not arise and during the period of conciliation, pass orders providing for visitation rights etc., which in a summary procedure as envisaged under the Act, cannot be supported and sustained. 44. As noticed hereinbefore, the CWC passed order for indefinite period according visitation rights to the father on every Sunday, which essentially is against the spirit of he provisions of the Act and the Rules, wherein the action has to be taken in a most swift manner. 45. So far as the plethora of the cases cited by both the parties are concerned, as noticed hereinbefore in the typical circumstances of the present case, the various issues raised do not require consideration in view of what has been discussed hereinbefore. 46. A word of caution for the Child Welfare Committee would be appropriate looking to the facts of the present case. In cases where the application/complaint is made by an estranged spouse alleging his/her child being in need of care and protection under the Act, the CWC must take the allegations made, with a pinch of salt. It would be appropriate that before any order is passed pertaining to production etc. of the child, a short notice is given to the other side, so as to avoid making the forum of the CWC a battle ground for the estranged couple and the child in question being subjected to unnecessary harassment. 47. It would be appropriate that before any order is passed pertaining to production etc. of the child, a short notice is given to the other side, so as to avoid making the forum of the CWC a battle ground for the estranged couple and the child in question being subjected to unnecessary harassment. 47. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the CWC was justified in seeking production of the child. However, once the child was produced and was found to be mingling, playing wholeheartedly and was very happy with the family of the respondent No.3, apparently looking to the nature of allegations made, there was no occasion for the CWC to then continue with the proceedings and, therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings stood lapsed on the said date, deserves acceptance. 48. Further, directions of the CWC in granting visitation rights directing weekly meeting for three hours, in the circumstances and the nature of jurisdiction, cannot be sustained. 49. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is allowed. It is held that with the observations made in the order-sheet dated 29.05.2019 and letting the petitioner go with the child, the proceedings initiated by the CWC pursuant to the complaint dated 20.05.2019 made by the respondent No.3 have lapsed. 50. Consequently, further order passed by the CWC pertaining to the visiting rights/access to the child, resulting in the communication dated 12.07.2019 to the SHO, Bhupalpura, shall stand quashed and set aside. The application filed by the respondent No.3 dated 20.05.2019 before the CWC, stands disposed of.