RAMKARAN JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, a challenge is raised against the order dtd. 26/4/2024, passed by the learned Special Court (POCSO) Jaipur District in Sessions Case No. 30/2023 titled as State Vs. Dilip Meena, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking the custody of his minor daughter, was rejected.

(2.) Concisely noted, the factual matrix of the lis before this Court dictates that the minor daughter of the petitioner was removed from the latter's custody, in pursuance of the statements tendered by the daughter before the Special Court (POCSO) on 6/2/2024 to the effect that the daughter was being coerced by her family into tendering false statements before the Court, which raised apprehensions regarding her safety and security. As a result, the custody of the minor daughter of the petitioner was handed over to the Balika Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. However, subsequently, on 18/4/2024, the minor daughter preferred an application before the learned Special Court (POCSO) through the Superintendent (Balika Grah) requesting that her custody be shifted and/or resumed with her family. Correspondingly, the petitioner preferred an application dtd. 20/4/2024 before the learned Special Court (POCSO) requesting resumption of custody of his minor daughter, citing his daughter's independent wish and also, his love and affection/best interests of his daughter. However, said application dtd. 20/4/2024 came to be rejected vide order impugned dtd. 26/4/2024, whereby the learned Special Court placed reliance upon the minor daughter's initial statement dtd. 6/2/2024, which exhibited the minor's wish to not reside with her parents. As a result, being aggrieved of the order impugned dtd. 26/4/2024, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in order to attain clarity on the nature of dispute and better understand the free will of the minor daughter, this Court vide orders dtd. 31/7/2024 and 2/8/2024 had directed the State to ensure her presence before the Court. In compliance of the said orders, the minor daughter has marked her presence before the Court in-person. It is also noted that the petitioner-father, has also marked his appearance to argue the matter, in-person.