Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, this Court is of the considered view that the 2nd respondent Child Welfare Committee will have to consider the matter afresh and decide as to whether the said Committee has got jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P3 petition and whether Ext.P3 O.P. makes out a case of “child in need of care and protection” as envisaged in Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and whether the 3rd respondent has a locus to make a complaint in view of the requirements under Section 31 of the above said Act. Further, the 2nd respondent should also consider the above said specific contention raised by the petitioner husband that the sole original jurisdiction to deal with custody disputes between parents regarding the custody of the children is vested exclusively with the Family Court going by the mandatory provisions contained in the Family Courts Act, 1984 and that the 2nd respondent Child Welfare Committee cannot usurp the said jurisdiction conferred conclusively on the said judicial forum, which is presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge, while taking recourse to the proceedings of the Juvenile Justice Act and that this contention is made all the more so in view of the fact that none other than the
