Karnataka High Court
Smt Pragada vs Mrs Vanaja on 19 December, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:52936
CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 313 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SMT. PRAGADA,
W/O LATE SRI. HARISH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WORKING IN JOGIHADLU VILL,
KADLEMAKKI, BOLEHONNUR,
N.R. PURA TALUK,
CHIKAMAGALURU - 577 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHARADI S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. VANAJA,
W/O LATE SRI. SATISHA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
signed by R/O KEREMENE, KANOOR VILL
MALATESH KATTINAMANE, N.R. PURA TALUK,
KC CHIKAMAGALURU - 577 134.
Location:
HIGH 2. THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 102 OF THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
ACT) 2015 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 20.08.2019 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.120/2018-19 PASSED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:52936
CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020
BY THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN
FOR THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.
2. Order under revision is passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.189/2019 wherein order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Chikkamagaluru District was assailed.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. Child by name Kumari Harshitha, daughter of Late Sri.Harsha, was under the care and protection of Child Welfare Committee, Chikkamagaluru District. She was taken to the custody by Child Welfare Committee on 06.02.2019 and counseling was held on 03.02.2019. The grandmother of the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:52936 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020 child applied for the custody so also mother of the child applied for the custody.
3.2. It is alleged that on 02.02.2019, father of the child died an unnatural death and there was a criminal case registered in Crime No.10/2019 in Balehonnur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Serious allegations were also leveled against the mother of the child for the homicidal death of father of the child. Statement of the child was recorded and after thorough enquiry, Child Welfare Committee decided to continue the custody of the child which was given as interim custody to grandmother of the child.
4. Correctness of the said order was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.189/2019.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties, decided that order of the Child Welfare Committee is based on sound and logical reasons and did not choose to interfere with the orders of the Child Welfare Committee.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, mother of the child/revision petitioner is before this Court, in this revision. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:52936 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020
7. After addressing the arguments for sufficient length of time, Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that order of the Child Welfare Committee will always be subject to the rights of the revision petitioner to be exercised under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
8. He further submits that child is now sufficiently grown up and in the changed circumstances, right may be reserved for the revision petitioner to approach the Civil Court under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 insofar as custody is concerned and findings recorded by the Child Welfare Committee confirmed by the First Appellate Court should not prejudice the rights of the revision petitioner, if any, intended proceedings, in the event, this Court upholding the orders of the Child Welfare Committee confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
9. Per contra, Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.2 and Sri.K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned orders.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:52936 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020
10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, this Court does not find any patent, factual error or error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders.
12. No doubt, it is a paramount interest of the child that should be kept in mind while passing any orders of the custody of the minor to either the parents or rival claimants. In the case on hand, when there was counseling held, report revealed that child intended to stay with the grandmother in preference to mother who is the revision petitioner.
13. From the date of order of Child Welfare Committee till today, much water has flown under the bridge and child has also grown up in age and may be in a position to reassess the situation.
14. Needless to emphasize that when a intended proceedings are initiated by revision petitioner under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, an enquiry would be definitely held and interest of the child will be taken into account by competent Civil Court in this regard while accepting the request of handing -6- NC: 2024:KHC:52936 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020 over the custody of the child from the grandmother of the child to the mother of the child.
15. It is also settled position of law that the Child Welfare Committee swung into action under the precarious circumstances when the father of the child died and there was a criminal case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Suspicion was on the mother of the child itself. Therefore, an enquiry was held insofar as custody of the child is concerned at relevant point of time by Child Welfare Committee and exercising the power vested in it, passed the order which was confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court.
16. However, impugned orders cannot over ride the provisions of duly constituted statute namely Guardians and Wards Act. Therefore, mere passing the order by Child Welfare Committee confirmed by the First Appellate Court would be ipso facto take away the right of the revision petitioner to approach the Civil Court under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. If any such intended petition is filed by the revision petitioner, needless to emphasize that due enquiry needs to be -7- NC: 2024:KHC:52936 CRL.RP No. 313 of 2020 held under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and independent decision has to be taken with regard to request to be made by the revision petitioner.
17. At the most, order passed by the Child Welfare Committee confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court would be a guiding factor and it would not bind the Civil Court in exercising the power under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
18. With the above observations, revision petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91 CT: BHK