(1 of 16) [CW-7355/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
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).
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Pandey.
Mr. Shashank Agrawal.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
20/03/2020
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-
Mother.
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,
Bhupalpura.
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
Court.
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
interference.
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
under:-
“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 gSA4- ;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 gSA5- ;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 gSA6- ;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 gSA7- ;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 gSA8- ;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 gSA9- ;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 gSA10- ;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 gSAvr% 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 djkosAfnukad 20@05@2019
LFkku mn;iqj lgh@
gLrk{kj”
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:-
“29-05-19
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 mifLFkrAnksuksa 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;kAnksuksa 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
lgh@”
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
respondents.
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
acceptance.
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
sustained.
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.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
PKS/-
(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:21:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)