KRISHNAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision petition is against the order of the Child Welfare Committee, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") dated 17.3.2018 in O.P.No.713/R/2017. A child aged 13 years was found as a child in need of care and protection by the Committee. An application for release of the child by the father and the grandmother was dismissed by the Committee by the impugned order. Alleging that the said order is illegal and perverse, the revision petitioners/father and grandmother of the child filed this revision petition. The impugned minuscule order is as follows:

(2.) The facts are as follows: The juvenile lost her mother while she was aged only 10 years. Thereafter, her father married again and she was staying with her father, stepmother and her younger sister. It appears that she shifted her residence to the house of her maternal grandmother. While so, on 28.11.2017 she was seen missing. When she was found out, a crime was registered under the POCSO Act against one Anandu. As per the order of the Judicial Magistrate, she was produced before the Committee. Even though the second petitioner approached the Committee on 4.12017 she was not released or given the custody to the second petitioner. Thereafter on 6.12017 she again absconded from the Mahila Mandiram, where she was stationed. A crime was registered in this regard at the police station. Thereafter she was again admitted in the Mahila Mandiram on 212017. Again on 29.12017 she disappeared from the said Mahila Mandiram against which also a crime was registered. She was detected on 3.1.2018. It is also evident from the records that the second petitioner sought permission to see the child on so many occasions and also visited her. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitions filed for the release and custody of the child by the first petitioner as well as by the second petitioner was rejected as per the impugned order.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order will reveal that the ground on which the petition was dismissed is that the second petitioner was found incapable of looking-after the child as well as there is possibility of meeting the child by the accused in the POCSO case where victim is the juvenile. The prayer of the first petitioner was rejected on the ground of negligence as well as lack of effective intervention in looking-after the child. The child was treated as a child in need of care and protection by the Committee. The definition of such a child is given under Section 2 (14) of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 2 (14) of the Act reads as follows: