Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 568 (KER)

SANTHA BABU W/o. NATARAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-12

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Petitioner is mother of the 5 th respondent. The 6 th respondent is petitioner's daughter-in-law and respondents 7 and 8 are grandchildren. The petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to ensure and provide proper education to the 7 th and 8 th respondents / grandchildren. 2. The petitioner submitted that her son (5 th respondent) is an MBBS Doctor who turned to profess and practice Yoga, Martial Arts and Asceticism. The petitioner's son and daughter-in-law (respondents 5 and 6) do not believe in Syllabus based School education and they are denying formal School education to respondents 7 and 8. Respondents 5 and 6 are compelling the children to follow Asceticism and feeding the thoughts of eternal life at a tender age of the children. Respondents 7 and 8 are brilliant in their education. But, the custody of respondents 7 and 8 with their natural guardian without proper education will adversely affect the mental condition of respondents 7 and 8. The life of respondents 7 and 8 is in danger. The petitioner therefore sought to direct respondents 5 and 6 to provide better education and assistance to respondents 7 and 8. The petitioner also sought to direct an enquiry into the matter. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission on 26.07.2024, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get a report from the 2 nd respondent-Child Welfare Committee after conducting a preliminary discrete enquiry. Perusing the records of the case, this Court took a view that an interaction with the parties by the Victim Rights Centre is necessary. On 21.11.2024, this Court directed the Victim Rights Centre to have an interaction with the family members and file a report. 4. The Project Co-ordinator (VRC) filed a report dated 28.11.2024. The report revealed that the 5 th respondent-father was clearly involved with a young woman and there are references of the 5 th respondent as a pedophile in connection with a POCSO case, which was later closed due to lack of evidence. The 8 th respondent is not provided with School education. The children are stubborn, exhibit behavioural disorders alongside socially awkward tendencies. The report of the Project Co-ordinator (VRC) required this Court to declare or treat the 8 th respondent as a child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 5. The children are stubborn, exhibit behavioural disorders alongside socially awkward tendencies. The report of the Project Co-ordinator (VRC) required this Court to declare or treat the 8 th respondent as a child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 5. In her report dated 16.12.2024, the Project Co-ordinator stated that she had been in contact with the 5 th respondent's sister and that the 5 th and 8 th respondents are currently missing. The 8 th respondent being a minor qualifies as a child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, given the circumstances of this case. The Project Co- ordinator stated that the 8 th respondent does not appear to be in safe environment. 6. This Court therefore, as per order dated 16.12.2024, directed the 3 rd respondent to make discrete enquiry regarding the whereabouts of respondents 5 and 8 and to secure the presence of the 8 th respondent before Secretary, DLSA, Kollam and also to ensure presence of the 8 th respondent before this Court on 06.01.2025. 7. On 06.01.2025, taking note of the behaviour of the 8 th respondent, this Court was of the view that the child has to be presented for a psychological/psychiatric evaluation/assessment. Hence, the 2 nd respondent-CWC and the 9 th respondent-District Council for Child Welfare were directed to keep custody of the 8 th respondent and to present the child before the Government Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram for psychological / psychiatric evaluation/assessment at the earliest. 8. By communication dated 25.01.2025, the treating Doctor reported that the rapport of the child has improved and the child is interacting with other minors in the Ward and accepts food and takes medicine given to her. The Doctor reported that further time is required for assessment, continued treatment and psychological intervention before the final report. On 14.02.2025, considering the improvement shown by the 8 th respondent, this Court gave the following directions: 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the paramount interest of the child, the following orders are passed as an interim measure: (i) The 8 th respondent-child may be discharged from the Medical Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram subject to the advice of the treating Doctors. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the paramount interest of the child, the following orders are passed as an interim measure: (i) The 8 th respondent-child may be discharged from the Medical Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram subject to the advice of the treating Doctors. (ii) The custody of the child may be given to the petitioner-grandmother and the child be housed at the petitioner's residence. (iii) The petitioner shall ensure that a Caretaker is appointed who will take care of the child during day and night. (iv) The petitioner shall give access to all family members including father, mother and sibling of the 8 th respondent, to the child. (v) The child may be registered with NIOS / NIOS Sub Centre to continue her studies. (vi) The petitioner shall provide medical consultation and medical treatment to the 8 th respondent. (vii) The Child Welfare Committee, Kollam shall provide frequent counselling to the petitioner and the 8 th respondent. (viii) The Child Welfare Committee, Kollam shall monitor the progress in the condition of the 8 th respondent. (ix) Every assistance shall be given to the petitioner and the 8 th respondent from the Victim Rights Centre, KeLSA, through DLSA, Kollam. Pursuant to the said order, the child remained in the custody of the petitioner-grandmother. 9. On 05.03.2025, this Court noted that the child shows adjustment disorder to get along with the grandmother and has shown violent behaviour and hence has been admitted to Travancore Medicity Medical College Hospital, Kollam. 10. The Project Co-ordinator submitted a supplemental report dated 12.03.2025. The Project Co-ordinator reported that after the child was discharged from the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram on 18.02.2025, the petitioner-grandmother had agreed to take the child to her residence and assumed responsibility for the child's physical and mental health, including treatment. While the grandmother's intentions were undoubtedly sincere, the child, after a few days of being manageable, began displaying erratic behaviour. According to the grandmother, the child's mother frequently visited and, during these visits, would reportedly incite the child to become violent. Regardless of the cause, the child's behaviour escalated, resulting in her admission to Kollam Medicity under the care and supervision of Dr. Radhakrishnan M.P. The child was an inpatient at Kollam Medicity from 05.03.2025. The child was discharged at the request of the petitioner-grandmother on 08.03.2025. 11. Regardless of the cause, the child's behaviour escalated, resulting in her admission to Kollam Medicity under the care and supervision of Dr. Radhakrishnan M.P. The child was an inpatient at Kollam Medicity from 05.03.2025. The child was discharged at the request of the petitioner-grandmother on 08.03.2025. 11. A general finding from the mental health professionals is that neither the child nor her parents are co-operative with any form of treatment or guidance. They exhibit social awkwardness and seem to prefer maintaining their current lifestyle. The child is highly uncomfortable in the company of anyone other than her parents. She resists any structured routines and prefers to remain in her comfort zone, which her parents understandably allow, though this comes at the expense of her education and mental health. While the parents have shown a lack of co-operation and responsibility throughout the litigation process in light of the child’s expressed wishes, custody may be granted to the 6 th respondent. There is a real concern that, under these circumstances, the child may remain untreated and may not continue her education. 12. The Project Co-ordinator opined that the child may be ordered to join her mother forthwith. The child may be registered with NIOS to continue her studies through homeschooling once she is deemed medically fit to resume her education which has been interrupted for the past two years as suggested in the report dated 14.02.2025. The child's overall well being, encompassing her physical and mental health, as well as her academic progress, i.e. matters which have been agreed to be overseen by the 6 th respondent's relatives may be monitored by the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam. Periodic reports on her condition may be submitted by the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam to the Kerala State Child Rights Commission every month till the child completes the age of 14 years till such age she deserves elementary education as her fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India as contemplated under the Right to Education Act, 2009. 13. Respondents 5 and 6 are to be directed to inform the Kerala State Child Rights Commission if the child is removed from the jurisdiction of the Commission and to provide complete details of the new address where the child will be residing. 13. Respondents 5 and 6 are to be directed to inform the Kerala State Child Rights Commission if the child is removed from the jurisdiction of the Commission and to provide complete details of the new address where the child will be residing. The Kerala State Child Rights Commission shall co-ordinate with its counterpart in any other State to ensure the over all well being of the child and also the continued compliance with the child’s education till she completes 14 years of age. If the petitioner or the Kerala State Child Rights Commission reports such a violation to this Court, this Court has to initiate contempt proceedings against the 5 th and 6 th respondents under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for civil contempt, for the violation of this Court’s judgment. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The custody of the 8 th respondent-child shall be given to the 6 th respondent forthwith. (ii) Respondents 5 and 6 shall register the child with NIOS or CBSE or any other recognised Board, to continue her studies, in the ensuing academic year. (iii) The Child Welfare Committee, Kollam shall monitor the physical and mental health of the 8 th respondent and her academic progress, while the child is in the custody of respondents 5 and 6. (iv) The Child Welfare Committee shall submit periodic reports on the condition of the 8 th respondent to the Kerala State Child Rights Commission in every three months, till the child completes the age of 14 years or till such age she deserves elementary education. (v) Respondents 5 and 6 are directed to inform the Kerala State Child Rights Commission if the child is to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Commission and to provide details of new address where the child will be residing. The Kerala State Child Rights Commission shall co- ordinate with its counterpart in any other State to ensure the overall well being of the 8 th respondent and the continued education of the child till she completes 14 years of age. (vi) It is made clear that any violation of this judgment by respondents 5 and 6 will be treated as “civil contempt” as envisaged under the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. (vi) It is made clear that any violation of this judgment by respondents 5 and 6 will be treated as “civil contempt” as envisaged under the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. (vii) The petitioner shall have visitorial right to meet and interact with the 8 th respondent-child during any reasonable time.