Delhi High Court has held that Child Welfare Committee has no jurisdiction to settle custody dispute between the parties and if, matrimonial disputes are pending in the Family Court, it is the Family Court which has jurisdiction to settle such dispute.
A bench of Justice Malhotra has passed the order in the case titled as GEETANJALI DOGRA vs STATE & ORS on 06.09.2019.
The petitioner, the mother of the minor child Saarthik Mehta aged 9 months on the date 14.09.2018 i.e. the date of the impugned order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), District South bearing D.No.CWC/LN/2018-19/982 seeks the setting aside of the said impugned order of the CWC (South), vide which the CWC observed to the effect that considering the best interest of the child who was just nine months old, the Committee decided to give permission to the father of the child, Commander Rahul Mehta to have access to the child Master Saarthik Mehta to meet his child for two hours on every Saturday/ Sunday during the day time with mutual convenience of the both parents at the residence of the mother.
The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the impugned order of the CWC is contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and is beyond the jurisdiction of the CWC. The petitioner has further submitted that the terms and provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have been misunderstood by the CWC and that the CWC does not have the authority to ignore and traverse the provisions of neither the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 nor of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 nor of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Upon consideration of the entire matter, the High Court observed "which also persuades this Court to hold that no power other than that conferred on the Child Welfare Committee in terms of Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 can be exercised by it which powers can also be exercised only to the extent as indicated thereby".
High Court further observed "It is apparent thus that in terms of provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 powers are conferred on the Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the aspects of guardianship, visitation and access to a minor child and as observed elsewhere hereinabove, in the circumstances of the instant case where there is litigation pending between the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.2 before the Family Courts, Delhi, the respondent no.2 could not have resorted to a mode to detract from the adjudication qua the rights of access to the minor child, which are to be made by a Court of law".
High Court also observed "On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, as observed hereinabove, in terms of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, taking the same into account and the aspect that there is a litigation pending in the Family Court between the mother of the minor child and the father of the minor child as has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner and not refuted on behalf of the respondent no.1 in as much as the proceedings for maintenance are pending before the said Court, it is apparent that jurisdiction to grant permission or access to the respondent no.2 to the minor child in the circumstances of the instant case is vested with the Family Court concerned alone".
Read the Order here:
