SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Neelam Bohra vs Child Welfare Committee on 20 March, 2020

(1 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7355/2019

Neelam Bohra W/o Sh. Anshul Singhvi, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of 39, G Road, Bhopalpura, Udaipur (Raj.)


1. Child Welfare Committee, Udaipur

2. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur

3. Anshul Singhvi S/o Sh. Ashok Singhvi,, Aged About
34 Years, Resident Of 323, Opposite Mothers Pride
School, Sector 5, Gurugaon- 122 001 (Haryana).


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Pandey.
Mr. Shashank Agrawal.




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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:24 PM)

(2 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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-


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.

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.

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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:24 PM)
(3 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

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.

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,


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.

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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:24 PM)
(4 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

Courts Act, 1984. The application is essentially an abuse of

the process of the law.

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.

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.

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


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.

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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:24 PM)
(5 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

violated, besides which there is no provision applicable to

the circumstances.

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.

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.

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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:24 PM)
(6 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

secure the safety and well-being of his minor child, who is

only aged about 2 years.

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


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.

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.

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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:24 PM)

(7 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

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.

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. 661

and Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. UOI

Anr.: (2014) 214 DLT 1.

I have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material

available on record.

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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)

(8 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

The relevant portion of the application, reads as


“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 NksVhNksVh ckrksa ij mlds lkFk xM+k djus dh /kefd;k

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)
(9 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

nsrh] izkFkhZ dks vius vius ekrkfirk 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
xkyhXykSt 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 ekrkfirk 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 iyiy esa
mls firk ds ns[kHkky] mldh ekfy”k] fu;fer nokbZ;ksa vkSj
lkQlQkbZ 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 [email protected]@2019
LFkku mn;iqj [email protected]

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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)

(10 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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:-


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 nknknknh] 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
lekbZ”k dhA nksuksa dks ikfjokfjd :i ls lkFk jgus rFkk ckyd dks
tSfod ekrkfirk ds lkFk lHkh ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa ds uSlfxZd Lusg
izse o I;kj dh vko”;drk ds vuq:i lek;k x;kA

nksuksa i{kksa dh lekbZ”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
[email protected]

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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)

(11 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

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.

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.

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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)
(12 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

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.

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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)
(13 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

placing of the child in safe custody of a fit
person or a fit facility.”

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.

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.

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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)

(14 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

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


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

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)
(15 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)

(16 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]

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


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


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.

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.


(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation