the said Act envisages any child abuse or sexual assault as defined under the said Act. Child abuse which can be said to apply in the instant case, is defined under Section 2(m), which refers to the maltreatment whether habitual or not of the child which includes neglect. Section 2(m) is relevant, which postulates “ neglect of the child ”. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the word “ neglect” envisaged in Section 2(m) is not synonymous with the word “ negligence ” which appears in Section 304-A of the I. P. C. The word “neglect” in so far as the said Act is concerned, has a different connotation then the word “ negligence ”, which appears in the I.P.C. “ Neglect ”, according to the learned Senior Counsel, would mean disregard to duty, a failure to provide food, water, shelter, etc., to the child which is under the care of a particular person, whereas “ negligence ”, as envisaged in the I.P.C., entails a failure to exercise a degree of care. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned President of the Children's Court has erred in taking one for the other. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said words are not interchangeable as the context in which they have been used in the two statutes, is different. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said Act has been framed pursuant to the International convention of the Rights of the Child 1989. The said International convention obligates the participating states to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligence, treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the care of the child. The principles entwined in the
