ORDER : 1. This revision petition was filed challenging an order of the Child Welfare Committee invoking Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short the “Act”). 2. The first petitioner is the father and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor children. The 3rd respondent is the mother of the children. 3. On 16.1.2021, the third respondent-mother approached the Family Court, Kottarakkara to appoint her as the guardian and also for custody of the children. 4. An interlocutory application was also filed by the third respondent mother on the same day. 5. The Family Court issued notice and no order has been passed on the claim for interim custody. 6. On 19.4.2021, third respondent mother approached the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam for custody of the children. On the same day itself, the Committee appears to have issued a notice to the 1st petitioner father for hearing on 22.4.2021. It is not known whether the 1st petitioner has been served with the notice. However, on 22.4.2021 itself, the Child Welfare Committee passed an order giving custody to the mother from 2nd Saturday till the following Saturday of every month. The order also directed the police to provide assistance to the mother to obtain custody from the father. 7. The above order is questioned in this revision petition. 8. The Committee was of the opinion that depriving the children having contact with the mother is against the interest of the children and therefore custody as above has to be given. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this order was passed without hearing the 1st petitioner and the Committee has no power to interfere with the dispute between parents in regard to the custody of the children. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent defended the action of the Committee. The learned counsel particularly pointed out to Section 2(14)(v) of the Act. The above provision reads thus: “2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: xxx xxx xxx (14) “child in need of care and protection” means a child: xxx xxx xxx (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.” 11. We must at the outset note that the Committee committed grave error in ordering custody to the mother when the matter is pending before the Family Court. The Committee ought to have restrained from entertaining a dispute which is a subject matter of lis between the parties. We must also note that wrangling between the spouses in regard to custody will not confer any power on the Committee to interfere in such matters and give custody to one of them. Going by various provisions, including Section 2(14)(v) of the Act, the Committee's role would arise only when none of the parents is in a position to take care or protect the child or children. The Committee can step into at a stage to protect a child when parents are not in a position to protect the child. The role of the Committee commences from the stage where both parents are not in a position to take care and protect the child. The parens patriae principle to intervene is to protect the child and act as a parent of the child when parents fail to take care and protect the child. So also is the matter of dispute between spouses. The Committee would be justified in interfering with the custody of child with one of the parent, if that parent is incapacitated or failed completely to take care of the child. 12. The Committee cannot voluntarily interfere with the custody of the children except on a circumstance where it forms an opinion that the child requires care and protection. Merely because the children are isolated from the mother by the father, Committee cannot interfere with the legal custody of the children by the father. 13. However, in this case, no such opinion was formed by the Committee. The Committee did not find that father is incapacitated to take care and protect the children. On the other hand, giving custody to the mother for only one week in a month would show that the father has the capacity to take care and protect the children. 14. We also note that 1st petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to appear and raise objection. In every proceedings before the Committee, they shall follow the principles of natural justice when an adverse order is passed against a party. See Chapter II Section 3 (xvi). 15. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. 14. We also note that 1st petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to appear and raise objection. In every proceedings before the Committee, they shall follow the principles of natural justice when an adverse order is passed against a party. See Chapter II Section 3 (xvi). 15. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the same. No order as to costs.