JUDGMENT Subodh Abhyankar, J. - This order shall also govern the disposal of WA No.1492/2019 and WA No.1491/2019 as both these appeals have arisen out of a common order dated 17/06/2019. 2. Also heard on IA No.4244/019, filed in WA No.1492/2019 which is an application for grant of permission to file writ appeal against the order dated 17/06/2019, passed in WP No.29729/2018 by the writ Court on the ground that WP No.29729/2018 was filed by the petitioner Smt. Anshu Malhotra (respondent No.1 herein) without impleading the appellant as one of the party respondent despite the fact that the appellant was the complainant before the subordinate forum at Gurgram. Although an application to implead her as a party in the aforesaid writ petition was also filed but the same was not decided by the writ Court. 3. On due consideration, taking note of the fact that the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP No.29729/2018 on 17/06/2019 has also been challenged by Rajneesh Malhotra, the original respondent No.6, who is also the husband of the writ petitioner Smt. Anshu Malhotra, this Court finds it expedient to allow the present application IA No.4244/2019, and thus it is held that W.A.No.1492/2019 is held to be competent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits as in both the appeals, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned senior advocate has argued on behalf of the appellants. 5. The impugned order, which has given rise to the present appeals, read as under:- 'The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the notice issued by the Child Welfare Committee, Gurugram, District Haryana for her appearance on 24.12.2018 before the Committee. 2. Facts of the case in short are that petitioner and respondent No.6 are husband and wife. The petitioner gave birth to a male child Ishaan who is currently aged about 8 years. According to the petitioner, after two months of the marriage, respondent No.6 started ill treating her and he used to quarrel on petty issues. After marriage they started living at Mumbai where respondent No.6 was having job. Petitioner also did a job in Mumbai. At the time of delivery she came to Ujjain and thereafter she went back to Mumbai and started living with respondent No.6. She lived there for 4-5 years. After marriage they started living at Mumbai where respondent No.6 was having job. Petitioner also did a job in Mumbai. At the time of delivery she came to Ujjain and thereafter she went back to Mumbai and started living with respondent No.6. She lived there for 4-5 years. During her stay at Mumbai, behaviour of respondent No.6 did not change and continued with harassment and ill treatment, ultimately she left her job and came back to Ujjain along with her minor son on 9.12.2016 and since then, she is residing with her two brothers. At present her son Ishaan is studying in Akshat International School, Ujjain. The petitioner has further averred that in order to harass her the respondent No.6 tried to approach her at her residence at Ujjain, for which she filed a complaint in police station, Madhav Nagar, Ujjain. The counseling was carried out and respondent No.6 did agree to meet Ishaan at Ujjain in the evening hours and thereafter he would approach only after getting orders from the competent court. 3. The respondent No.6 sent e-mail to M.P.State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (in short MPSCPCR) Bhopal on 3.7.2017 labeling various allegations against the petitioner with regard to harassment and ill treatment to minor child Ishaan. He also alleged that he is not being permitted to meet his child. On 3.7.2017 the Child Welfare Committee (in short CWC) Ujjain issued a direction for obtaining the counseling report from the child and home visiting report. In the meanwhile, the Administrative Officer of M.P. State Commission issued a letter to District Women Empowerment Officer to enquire into the matter and submit report within 7 days. She prepared the home visiting report on 4.7.2017 and counseling report after visiting the child in his school on 28.6.2017. The CWC, Ujjain directed the petitioner to appear before the Commission. Under the fear that her husband may do some mischief, she did not appear before the Commission. Respondent No.6 again filed an application with the CWC Ujjain on 10.8.2017 seeking a direction to the petitioner to permit him to meet the child. However the application was rejected by the CWC as the matter was not within its ambit/power/jurisdiction. Under the fear that her husband may do some mischief, she did not appear before the Commission. Respondent No.6 again filed an application with the CWC Ujjain on 10.8.2017 seeking a direction to the petitioner to permit him to meet the child. However the application was rejected by the CWC as the matter was not within its ambit/power/jurisdiction. The petitioner obtained a report submitted by District Women Empowerment Officer and MPSCPCR under the RTI Act which reveal that findings have been recorded in her favour that she is not ill treating her child. Inspite of the aforesaid detail report, respondent No.6 did not give up and again lodged a false complaint at One Stop center of District Women Empowerment Office who again summoned the petitioner to appear before it on 20.9.2017. The petitioner submitted a detail representation before the District Women Empowerment Officer on 18.9.2018 that she is being harassed again and again by the respondent No.6. Petitioner further alleged that at the instance of respondent No.6, she received a notice dated 15.9.2018 from CWC Gurugram. It appears that respondent No.6 approached the CWC, Gurugram through one smt. Asha Barak, social activist for women and children in Gurugram. At the instance of Smt. Asha Barak, the CWC sent impugned notice to the petitioner for her appearance on 24.12.2018 at 2.00 p.m in the office. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 on the ground that CWC, Gurugram is not having authority under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act to issue summon to the petitioner for appearance. Petitioner has also alleged the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 is without jurisdiction on the ground that neither petitioner nor the child is residing within the jurisdiction of CWC, Gurugram, therefore it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by so called activist. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6 is a matrimonial dispute and if respondent No.6 is interested in visiting the child, then he has to approach the Family Court and not before the CWC, hence prayed for quashment of the notice as well as the proceedings. 5. After notice, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed return raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction of this court. 5. After notice, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed return raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted that National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (in short NCPCR), New Delhi vide letter dated 15.9.2018 directed CWC, Gurugram to take necessary action on the complaint filed by Smt. Asha Barak, social activist of Gurugram. The NCPCR took a suo motu cognizance of complaint for protection of child Master Ishaan with regard to his basic rights to meet father and grand parents, health and education issues. NCPCR prima facie found that CWC Ujjain and MPCPCR, Bhopal did not carefully examine about the violation of child rights and closed the complaint of the father by stating that matter does not come under the purview of CWC, Ujjain and advised him to reach to the Family Court. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are having rights to examine and enquire about welfare of the child by virtue of power conferred under section 13(1) and 17 of NCPCR Act. It has been further submitted that under the direction of NCPCR, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have authority to enquire and take action in the matter of welfare of the child Ishaan because the child is suffering from hernia disease since last 4-5 years. It has been further averred that notices sent to the petitioner have returned with the noting of either refused or validity period exceeded. 6. Respondent No.6 has filed an application seeking deletion of his name from the array of respondents on the ground that he did not make any complaint to the CWC, Gurugram, hence he is not necessary party in this petition, therefore his name be deleted. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The issue involved in this petitioner is whether CWC, Gurugram is having jurisdiction to entertain a complaint either made by social activist or respondent No.6 in respect of welfare of the child called Ishaan ? 9. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.6 was solemnized on 7.12.2008 and since 9.12.2016 the petitioner is living at Ujjain with her minor son because of matrimonial dispute with respondent No.6, therefore there is a matrimonial dispute and for which both have remedy to approach the Family Court in order to resolve their dispute. 9. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.6 was solemnized on 7.12.2008 and since 9.12.2016 the petitioner is living at Ujjain with her minor son because of matrimonial dispute with respondent No.6, therefore there is a matrimonial dispute and for which both have remedy to approach the Family Court in order to resolve their dispute. So far as custody and visiting rights of respondent No.6 is concerned, he is also having remedy to approach the Family Court under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. 10. Respondent No.6 earlier approached the CWC, Ujjain alleging that petitioner and her brothers are ill treating his son and they are not permitting him to meet his son which is his fundamental and statutory right. On the basis of complaint made by respondent No.6, the Administrative Officer directed District Women Empowerment officer to enquire and submit report within 7 days. The CWC Ujjain has also directed for obtaining counseling report from the child and home visiting report. Ms. Rekha Vasnik, member child line submitted the home visiting report on 17.5.2017 with the finding that she did not find any atrocities towards the child by the mother. The child is friendly with his mother and maternal uncle. Operative part of the finding of the team is reproduced below : ml nkSjku dgh ls dgh rd ugh yxk dh cPpk ekrk }kjk izrkfMr gSA oks vPNs ls [ksy jgk gSA ikik&eEeh ls dkQh Qzs.Myh gSA efgyk ¼b'kku dh ekrk½ dkQh le>nkj fn[kkbZ nh rFkk LokfHkekuh Hkh fn[kkbZ nhA oks ugh pkgrh dh mldk csVk yM+kbZ >xMs ds ekgksy es jgsA mls vPNs okrkoj.k ds lkFk ijofj'k djuk pkgrh gSA 11. District Women Empowerment Officer also recorded the statement of child who did not make any complaint with regard to behaviour of his mother. District Women Empowerment Officer also recorded the statement of child who did not make any complaint with regard to behaviour of his mother. His statement is reproduced below : esjk uke bZ'kku gSA esjs ikik dk uke jtuh'k gS og esjh eEeh v'akq eYgks=k gSA eSa ;gka v{kr baVjus'kuy esa iM+rk gwaA igys eqEcbZ esa i<+rk FkkA ;gka dqN efguksa ls ;gh ekek ds ;gka jg jgk gwa eSa vkSj eEehA eqEcbZ esa tc esa jgrk Fkk rks ikik ?kj ij gh jgrs Fks [kqn esxh cuk ds [kkrs Fks ij eq>s ugha nsrs FksA esjs nw/k dh FkSyh Hkh fNik nsrs Fks vkSj fcLdqV HkhA ogka ikik eEeh dks ekjrs Fks dHkh eq>s Hkh ekjrs FksA esjk dksbZ f[kykSuk dHkh muds ikl gkWy esa jg tkrk rks mls Qsad nsrs FksA Vh-oh- ns[krs Fks rks vxj eSa ml gkWy esa pyk tkrk rks eq>s csM:e esa tkus dks dgrs FksA ikik ogka eq>s dHkh ekWy ?kqekus ds fy, ugha ysdj x;s ges'kk esa eEeh ds lkFk gh tkrk FkkA ij ;gka vk;s rks eq>s ?kqeus ysdj vk;sA eSa vHkh ikap fnu ds fy, egs'oj x;s FksA LihM cksV Hkh pykbZ FkhA nks efguk ckn fQj tk;saxk ,slk crk jgk FkkA eSa ;gka ekek o eEeh ds lkFk x;k FkkA 12. In view of above, it is crystal clear that CWC, Ujjain and District Women Empowerment Officer both have submitted the report that Ishaan is happy with his mother and there is no ill treatment by his mother and uncle. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have wrongly taken up the matter again on the ground that CWC, Ujjain and MPSCPCR Bhopal could not take up the issue properly. 13. Section 3 provides the constitution of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and according to which Central Government shall by notification constitute a body to exercise the power conferred on it to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. Section 13 provides the functions of the commission and section 17 provides the constitution of State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. As per section 24, the provisions of section 7,8,9,10, subsection (1) of section 13 and section 14 and 15 shall apply to the State Commission also. Section 13 provides the functions of the commission and section 17 provides the constitution of State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. As per section 24, the provisions of section 7,8,9,10, subsection (1) of section 13 and section 14 and 15 shall apply to the State Commission also. Subsection (2) of Section 13 provides that Commission shall not enquire into any matter which is pending before the State commission or any other commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, by virtue of section 12 and section 13, where the State Commission has been constituted and any matter is pending, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights have no right or jurisdiction to exercise the power under section 13. In the present case, State Commission had already taken up the matter and after obtaining the report closed the issue. The CWC, Ujjain having jurisdiction did not find any atrocity, ill treatment or violation of any child rights on son of the petitioner and respondent No.6, therefore the CWC, Gurugram is not having the jurisdiction to take up the issue again and issue summons to the petitioner for protection of child. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.6 are residing within the jurisdiction of CWC, Gurugram therefore the CWC is also not having any territorial jurisdiction. At the most NCPCR could have sent the complaint to MPSCPCR or CWC, Ujjain. 14. Co-ordinate bench of this court in the matter of Priya Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P.No. 6163/2016) has held that in a case where due to dispute between the husband and wife, proceedings are pending between them, the CWC has no jurisdiction to direct visiting Rights either to husband or wife. Under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act and the Family Court Act, the powers are conferred to the court of competent jurisdiction to decide the application in respect of visiting or welfare of the child. '12. In the context of aforesaid legal position, arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent referring the provisions of Commission for Protection Of Child Rights Act, 2005 and as per United Nations Conventions is required to be adverted. '12. In the context of aforesaid legal position, arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent referring the provisions of Commission for Protection Of Child Rights Act, 2005 and as per United Nations Conventions is required to be adverted. Counsel referring the said convention urged that Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 20.03.2014 has accepted the applicability of those conventions but on perusal of the order, it is apparent that Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed for circulation of the 'Child Access and Custody Guidelines and pertaining Plan for guidance, among the Additional District Judges, Family Court Judges and marriage counsellors in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Whereby it is clear that High Court was conscious enough that said convention ought to be followed by the competent court of law to which the power has been conferred to declare guardian, therefore said convention is required to be observed by those courts or Forums having competence conferred to them under the law. Under the Act of 2015 and the Rules framed thereunder, CWC is not conferred with a power to give the custody of the child. It is a case wherein due to dispute in between the husband and wife, proceedings are pending between them, however CWC, Indore cannot direct visitation Rights to meet the child either to husband or to wife in the facts of the case. In the said context the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 are relevant whereby as per section 7, the court may make an order as to guardianship on submitting an application by a person as specified in section 8 before the competent court having jurisdiction to entertain such an application in a form as prescribed. As per section 7 the court may have power to decide who would be the guardian of the child. Similarly in the Family Courts Act, as per section 7(1)(b), explanation(g) the proceedings may be brought before the Family Court in a suit or proceeding asking guardianship of the child or the custody or access to any minor. 13. As per section 7 the court may have power to decide who would be the guardian of the child. Similarly in the Family Courts Act, as per section 7(1)(b), explanation(g) the proceedings may be brought before the Family Court in a suit or proceeding asking guardianship of the child or the custody or access to any minor. 13. Thus, it is apparent that under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act as well as under the provisions of Family Court Act, the powers are conferred to the court of competent jurisdiction who shall have powers to decide those application and in the said context if the letter of the High Court dated 20.03.2014 is interpreted applying the United Nations Conventions then it is Rightly communicated to the Courts having power to decide guardianship or to give visitation Rights to or access to the minor child, therefore argument advanced by the counsel for respondent No.5 asking benefit of convention through CWC, Indore is misplaced and repelled. 14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it can safely be concluded that under the provisions of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016, Child Welfare Committee does not confer power to give custody of a child taking it from mother and give to the father in the manner as done by the CWC, Indore in the present case. It is seen that CWC, Indore is passing orders granting custody of the children and one of such order has been brought to the notice of this court dated 25.5.2015. In the said case also the proceedings were pending before the Family Court for custody of the child but CWC usurp the jurisdiction and during pendency of those proceedings directed custody of the child to the mother. Similar is the position in the present case wherein also as per Annx.P/2, an application for custody of the child has also been filed before the Family Court but during pendency of the said application, respondent No.5 applied to the CWC where on the order of the visitation Rights has been passed directing to bring the child in the office of CWC, Indore on every Friday between 10.00 am to 5.00 pm to the petitioner. In my considered opinion the aforesaid exercise of powers by the CWC, Indore is not in conformity with the Act and the Rules and also contrary to the powers conferred under the other law applicable for the time being in force, therefore the order impugned is set aside. 15. As per the discussions made hereinabove, a note of caution is to be taken by the court that such power should not be exercised by the other CWCs functioning in the State of M.P. The aforesaid note of caution fortifies from the fact that the members appointed by the State Government either Chairman or members may not possess legal education, not having acquaintence with law and they are also not well versed with the provisions of law, however it is necessary to bring to the notice of all the CWCs, that what powers are required to be exercised by them. In this respect it is directed that they may exercise the powers within the ambit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Rules framed therein and not beyond the same. It is directed that custody of child cannot be given by them in the facts discussed above, therefore the order passed today by this court is required to be circulated to all the CWCs of the Sate of M.P. directing them that visitation Rights or custody as guardian should not be invoked by them assuming the jurisdiction in this regard. 16. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The Child Welfare Committee, Indore is directed not to exercise such powers as exercised by them in this case and they are restrained to do so in future. Parties shall bear their own costs.' 15. In view of aforesaid discussion and judgment rendered by this court, the Notice(Annx. P/1) dated 13.12.2018 and also the proceedings initiated by CWC, Gurugram are hereby quashed. Writ Petition is allowed. (emphasis supplied) 6. Parties shall bear their own costs.' 15. In view of aforesaid discussion and judgment rendered by this court, the Notice(Annx. P/1) dated 13.12.2018 and also the proceedings initiated by CWC, Gurugram are hereby quashed. Writ Petition is allowed. (emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in para 6 of the impugned order, as noted above, the learned writ Court has held that the respondent No.6 has filed an application seeking deletion of his name from the array of respondents despite the fact that there was no such application filed by the appellant and it has been incorrectly presumed by the writ Court that such an application was filed by the appellant and thus, has denied the opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter. Counsel has also submitted that the learned Judge of the writ Court has grossly erred in holding that CWC (Child Welfare Committee), Gurugram has no jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 13/12/2018. It is further submitted that the rights of the child master Ishan have been grossly violated by his mother, the respondent herein, which are available to him under Article 9 of United Nations Convention. 7. Counsel has also submitted that the learned Judge of the writ Court has also erred in deciding the matter as if it is a matrimonial dispute whereas it is a case of custody and care of the child of the appellant. It is further submitted that the learned writ Court has erred in relying upon a counselling report obtain by the CWC, Ujjain mentioning that no atrocity has been committed towards the child by his mother and further it has erred in holding that CWC, Gurugram has no jurisdiction to issue notice despite the fact that the cognizance of the complaint was taken by the National Commission exercising its jurisdiction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and in pursuance of the National Commission's direction, CWC, Gurugram who was conducting inquiry being agency delegated for the said purpose by the National Commission who has the jurisdiction throughout the territory of India. Counsel has also submitted that the appellant in WA No.1492/2019 Smt. Asha Barak was also a necessary party but the petitioner did not make her a party respondent and on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Counsel has also submitted that the appellant in WA No.1492/2019 Smt. Asha Barak was also a necessary party but the petitioner did not make her a party respondent and on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, has opposed the prayer and is it submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the writ Court in passing the impugned order. Counsel has also submitted that the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Priya Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in WP No.6163/2016 on 23/11/2016 has been rightly relied upon by the writ Court and thus, no case for interference is made out. 9. On due consideration of submissions and perusal of the documents filed on record as also the order passed by the writ Court, this Court does not find any error on the part of the writ court to dismiss the petition for the reasons assigned hereafter. 10. So far as the objection regarding the non-impleading of Ms.Asha Barak is concerned, who claims herself to be a social worker and also a senior advocate, this court is of the considered opinion that as the father of the child was already represented by a counsel, no other third persons involvement was necessary in the writ petition. Although this court has also heard the arguments on her behalf as advanced by the Sr.Advocate. 11. This Court also finds that admittedly, the orders have been passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Ujjain in favour of the respondent/wife and on perusal of the pleading of the parties, it appears to be a case more of a matrimonial dispute rather than a case of violation of a child's right. This court is of the considered opinion that in their matrimonial dispute, the appellant husband has just found yet another forum to take their personal disputes to the next level, i.e., before the child welfare committee. This court is of the considered opinion that in their matrimonial dispute, the appellant husband has just found yet another forum to take their personal disputes to the next level, i.e., before the child welfare committee. And in such circumstances, the jurisdiction of another Child Welfare Committee of other State of Harayana to look into the matter which is already being dealt with by the Child Welfare Committee of Ujjain, would not only give rise to further disputes between the two CWC but would also have the effect of undermining the latter's reputation in public eyes which has to be avoided. 12. As has been held in the case of Priya Yadav (supra) that the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016, the Child Welfare Committee does not confer power to give custody of a child taking it from one parent to another, the entire exercise taken up by the Child Welfare Committee, Gurugram cannot be said to be the fair exercise of its jurisdiction especially when the Child Welfare Committee, Ujjain was already seized of the matter. Thus, instead of taking the proper remedy available to the appellant under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, he has resorted to other means by approaching the Child Welfare Committee, Gurugram, Harayana which cannot be allowed under law. 13. Resultantly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the writ Court and both the writ appeals being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.