Disposed

Philomina Nayak v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC10 Apr 2019HCP/716/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the mother sought release of four minor daughters from state custody. The court mandated the Child Welfare Committee to conduct an expeditious enquiry into custody restoration under the Juvenile Justice Act within two weeks, noting the mother's desire to return to Odisha.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee to conduct an enquiry regarding restoration of custody to the petitioner's daughters within two weeks.

Philomina Nayak Vs the State Rep by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.04.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.716/2019

¶2

Philomina Nayak

¶3

..Petitioner

¶4

vs.
1.The State rep.by
The Station House Officer
Lawspet Police Station
Pondicherry.
Cr.No.16/2018.
2.The Chairperson
Child Welfare Committee
Pudhucherry.
3.The Officer Incharge
St.Francis Assisi Orphanage
Kurusukuppam, Puducherry. .. Respondent

¶5

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's daughters [1] Ankita, aged about 12 years [2] Geetha aged about 9 years [3] Sangeetha aged about 6 years and her sister's daughter [4] Summi aged about 5 years before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner.

¶6

For Petitioner .. Mr.P.T.Perumal

¶7

For Respondent .. Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy Public Prosecutor [Pondy]

¶8

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J)

¶9

The petitioner is the mother of the minor detenus, viz., Ankita, aged about 12 years ; Geetha aged about 9 years; Sangeetha, aged about 6 years and her sister's daughter namely Summi, aged about 5 years and she came forward to file this Habeas Corpus Petition stating among other things that one of her daughters, viz., Ankita, was suffering due to some illness

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

and with the help of one NGO by name Mission Humaitaire headed by Mrs.Therry Gagner, the said child was given treatment and she got cured. Ankita was also admitted in Vasavi CBSE International School at Puducherry and since the said school insisted for the consent from the natural guardian or to obtain an Adoption Deed and accordingly, the petitioner executed the Adoption Deed in favour of Therry Gagner through Adoption Deed bearing No.1318/2017 dated 12.09.2017 registered on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar, Oulgarpet, Pudhucherry. The said person, who is a French National, also took care of the other minor daughters of the petitioner.

¶12

2 On 07.02.2018, the 2^nd respondent went to Vasavi CBSE International School and forcefully taken Ankita and brought her to her residence along with Therry Gagner and when the husband of the petitioner enquired, he was informed that the 2^nd respondent received an anonymous complaint, alleging that Therry Gagner has sexually abused the said child. In this regard, the 1^st respondent has also registered a case in Crime No.16/2018 for the commission of the offences under relevant provisions including POCSO Act.

¶13

3 It is brought to the notice of this Court that the case after investigation, has culminated into a charge sheet and the same is taken on file in Spl.CC.No.21/2018 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Puducherry, and the trial is going on. The petitioner also filed a petition before the said Court seeking custody of the detenus and the same came to be dismissed with a liberty to approach this Court and accordingly, she has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶14

4 Mr.P.T.Perumal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of all the detenues and since the children have been kept under the custody as per the orders of the 2^nd respondent, this Court may pass appropriate orders, ordering restoration of their custody to the parents.

¶15

5 Per contra, Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Union Territory of Puducherry, on instructions, would submit that the trial of the case in Spl.CC.No.21/2018 is going on and most of the material witness turned hostile and the French National, Therry Gagner, still supporting the family of the parents of the detenues.

¶16

6 In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the parents of the detenues, after getting the custody, would like to go back to their native State, viz., Odisha.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

7 This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶19

8 In terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2015, the Child Welfare Committee, the 2^nd respondent herein is authorised to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders as to the well being and custody of the children.

¶20

9 In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the 2^nd respondent herein, viz., the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry, shall take appropriate steps for conducting enquiry in terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2015, as to the restoration of the custody of the children to their parents as expeditiously as possible and not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

10 The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Station House Officer
Lawspet Police Station
Pondicherry.
2.The Chairperson
Child Welfare Committee
Pudhucherry.
3.The Officer Incharge
St.Francis Assisi Orphanage
Kurusukuppam, Puducherry.
4.The Public Prosecutor [Puducherry]
High Court, Madras,

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

5.The Principal District Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

¶24

+1cc to Public Prosecutor, Advocate sr.no.35713 +2cc to Mr.P.T.Perumal, Advocate sr.no.35406

¶25

HCP.NO.716/2019

¶26

nrl(co) nr 12/04/2019

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Philomina Nayak v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philomina Nayak v. the State Rep by Its

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

Poovarasi Vs the Additional Director General of Prison

S.Lelin Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Chandrasekar Vs State by

Vijaya Kumar Vs Home Secretary

B.Appunraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Nandhini Vs the Secretary to Government