Dismissed

Prakashan P.K. v. Child Welfare Committee (Cwc)

Kerala HC19 Jun 2017WP(C)/11766/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by foster parents challenging an order restoring a child to SOS Children's Village. Ruling that entrustment under Section 37(1)(c) is subject to further Committee orders, the Court held petitioners had no right to the child, thus dismissing their challenge to the order.

What did the court decide?

No further orders were called for; the petitioners were directed to surrender the child to the SOS Children's Village as per the committee's order.

Prakashan P.K. Vs Child Welfare Committee (Cwc) — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶3

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/29TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶4

WP(C).No. 11766 of 2017 (U)

¶5

----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PRAKASHAN P.K. AGED 55 YEARS, S/O P.K. KUNJIKANNAN, POONJALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. SREEJA K.K W/O PRAKASHAN P.K., AGED 44 YEARS, POONJALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS. SRI.MISHAL M.DASAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT CHILDREN'S HOME, RAMAVARMAPURAM PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 631.

¶12

2. DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶13

3. QUEEN MARY FOUNDLING HOME, THEMALIPADAM, THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O, THRISSUR 680 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.

¶14

4. DIRECTOR, SOS CHILDREN'S VILLAGE, MULAYAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 751.

¶15

5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695001. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IYPE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DXY

¶18

WP(C).No. 11766 of 2017 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RESTORATION OF A CHILD TO AN INSTITUTION DATED 18.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.3.2017 GIVEN BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO AN ADVOCATE/LEGAL ADVISOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE GOVT. FLPS, NATTIKA DATED 23.3.2017.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CLASS TEACHER OF THE GOVT. FLPS, NATTIKA DATED 23.3.2017.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

DXY

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶31

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.11766 of 2017

¶32

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶33

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2017

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

A child, aged 3½ years, who was found abandoned was entrusted by the Child Welfare Committee to the third respondent for temporary care under Section 37(1)(c) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the Act). It appears that the third respondent, in turn, entrusted the child to the petitioners for foster care. Later, the Child Welfare Committee entrusted the child to the SOS Children's Village, Mulayam, Thrissur for foster care and issued Ext.P2 communication to the SOS Children's Village to receive

¶36

W.P.(c).No.11766 of 2017 : 2 :

¶37

the child from the third respondent and keep him under them. In the light of Ext.P2 order, the third respondent directed the petitioners to surrender the child as per Ext.P1 communication. This writ petition was filed then challenging Ext.P1 communication and Ext.P2 order. The case of the petitioners is that they are taking care of the child and therefore, there is no need for a further order for foster care of the child.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

Even according to the petitioners, the third respondent is only an adoption agency. The third respondent had absolutely no authority to entrust the child entrusted to them by the Child Welfare Committee, to the petitioners. Going by the scheme of the Act, the entrust ment of the child for temporary care by the Child Welfare Committee is subject to further orders to be passed by the Committee for the foster care of the child. The petitioners have, therefore, not acquired any right over the

¶40

W.P.(c).No.11766 of 2017

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

child. They are, therefore, not entitled to challenge Ext.P1 communication and Ext.P2 order. The writ petition, in the

¶43

circumstances, is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶45

rsr

Prakashan P.K. v. Child Welfare Committee (Cwc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashan P.K. v. Child Welfare Committee (Cwc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeev Mathew Vs Super Intending Engineer

N.Ramakrishna Das Vs State of Kerala

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector, Palakkad

Kunhimuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Basheer E Vs the Land Tribunal

M. Abdul Jabbar Vs Deputy Tahasildhar