Xxx vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The father of a 11 year old child has filed this writ Petition alleging that the child is in the illegal custody of the 4th respondent- Child Welfare

Committee, Ernakulam. He also alleges that the 4th respondent is denying him his right to meet and talk to his child without any reason, misusing and

abusing her official position.

Petitioner has stated that he had earlier approached this Court in WP(C) No.30123 of 2017 alleging inaction on the part of the Child Welfare

Committee as well as the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights on his complaint and that the said Writ Petition was dismissed and

that W.A.No.523 of 2018 filed by him against that judgment was also dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment taking note of the pendency of the litigation

before the Family Court between him and his wife. He has stated that Ext.P2 application filed by him on 02.11.2017 before the Family Court,

Ernakulam in O.P.(G&W) No.36 of 2017 is pending.

Petitioner has further stated that on 10.01.2020 the 4th respondent had directed him to produce the child for counseling and on that day he was

informed that continuous counseling was not required. Petitioner states that though he had informed them that the child should be taken to professional

counselors they discarded his request and kept the child in their custody.

In this Writ Petition filed on 27.01.2021 he has alleged that even though four months lapsed the 4th respondent is keeping the child with them

without assigning any reason and without permitting him or his sister to meet the child. It is stated that even though his sister approached the 4th

respondent and submitted Ext.P4 application on 23.03.2020 she was not permitted to meet the child and the child was not released.

It is stated that petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 petition before the Chief Minister on 22.02.2020 regarding these incidents and the same was

forwarded to the 2nd respondent.

The entire allegations in the Writ Petition are to the effect that the 4th respondent is retaining the child without authority.

The 4th respondent has filed a statement producing Annexure.R4(c) order dated 29.07.2020 of the Family Court in I.A.No.1868/2020 in

O.P.No.1012/2020, by which the 4th respondent was directed to release the child to the mother. The child is already released to the mother in tune

with the direction of the Family Court. The 4th respondent has also stated that the child had given Annexure.R4(a) statement in her own handwriting

where she has denied the allegation raised by the petitioner and she has made it clear that she does not even want to meet her father-the petitioner.

The 4th respondent has explained the circumstances under which the child was taken custody by them and also the circumstances under which the

child was released to the mother. The 4th respondent has also explained the action they have taken on receipt of the request from the sister of

petitioner.

Heard the petitioner who appeared in person through video conferencing and also the learned Government Pleader. Eventhough the petitioner was

informed several times that a lawyer can be engaged for him through Kerala State Legal Services Authority, he did not respond to the same.

I have considered the pleadings on record and the contentions raised by both sides.

Petitioner filed this Writ Petition after about six months of Annexure.R4(c) order passed by the Family Court, alleging illegal custody of the child

with the 4th respondent i.e about 6 months after the 4th respondent released the child to her mother based on Annexure R4(C) order of the Family

Court by which the 4th respondent was directed to release the child to the mother. In case the petitioner has any grievance over the said order, it is for

him to take up the said order in appropriate proceedings.

From the pleadings on record, it is seen that an application for dissolution of marriage as well as an application for custody are pending before the

Family Court. The statement as well as the documents produced by the 4th respondent would show that the child did not want to meet the father or

the sister of the father when the child was in the custody of the 4th respondent. It would also show that 4th respondent has only acted in accordance

with the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice Act and it was only when the Family Court issued an order that the child was released to the

mother, though the 4th respondent had found that the child was a child in need of care and protection under section 2(14)(v) of the Juvenile Justice

(Care&Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As the entire allegations are as against the illegal custody of the child by the 4th respondent and in the

counter affidavit, the 4th respondent has stated the circumstances under which the CWC had taken custody of the child and also the circumstances

under which the petitioner's sister was not allowed to meet the child, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court. I

am of the view that the prayers sought by the petitioner would not be in furtherance of the interest of the child.

In the circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any of the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is

made clear that this judgment shall not in any manner influence the adjudication of the cases pending before the Family Court between petitioner and

the mother of the child.