The division judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the State Human Rights Commission prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who was the daughter of opposite party nos. 4 and 5 died and then, led to the initiation of a criminal case against the son-in-law of the private opposite parties i.e. son of the petitioner no. 1, who is at present lodged in jail. The Petitioner no. 3 and 4 are the children born out of the wedlock of the deceased. An application was filed by the Opposite party no. 4 before the Director General of Police, U.P. stating that the children were the important witness to the case, and whereabouts of the children were not known, and that the applicants and his wife were the only persons, who care about their welfare and that the life of the children was in danger.
Thereafter, a request was made for tracing out the children and handing them over to the opposite party no. 4, and his wife. Furthermore, a copy was sent to the Chairman, of the Human Rights Commission and then cognisance was taken. The commission passed a direction to the Investigating Officer to produce the minor children before the Commission as it was necessary to record their statements in connection with their custody with a further direction that custody of the children should be taken immediately by the Investigating Officer and they should be lodged in a Child Care Home. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the commission.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended the jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission is defined in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and stated that as per Section 2 (d) and Section 12 of the Act, the custody of the minor children is not an issue which can be gone into or adjudicated by the Human Rights Commission. It was furthermore contended that issues pertaining to custody etc. are to be seen by the appropriate court/forum as prescribed in law such as the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Commission for Protection of Children Rights Act, 2005, Juvenile Justice Act, etc and meaning of Human Right provided by the Section 12 cannot be stretched to include issues pertaining to custody of minor children.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and others.
Contentions of the Opposite Party:
The Opposite Party No. 4 contended that a restrictive meaning should not be provided to the ‘Human Rights’. It was furthermore contended that the children are not being produced before the Investigating Officer for recording of their statements. The Opposite Party no. 4 relied upon the judgment titled Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Vs. Bani Kanta Das and other.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the State Human Rights Commission have exceeded its jurisdiction while making observations in the order that the statement of the children was necessary to be recorded before the Commission for the purposes of custody and seeing their attendance for the said purpose.
The court noted that the Commission, prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that it is open for the Investigating Officer to take all steps necessary to investigate the criminal case and the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 shall co-operate in the same. So far as the issue of custody is concerned, private opposite parties are at liberty to initiate such proceedings as they may be advised to do, as per law, as well as for a fair investigation in the criminal case, if required.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court stayed the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission as regard to the matter concerning custody of the child.
Case Title: Prabha Shankar Dwivedi v. State Of U.P. Human Rights Commission
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brij Raj Singh
Case No: WRIT - C No. - 10623 of 2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Adv. Gaurav Mehrotra, Adv. Abhineet Jaiswal
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Shikhar Anand, C.S.C.
Picture Source :
