W.P (C)9479 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26455 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9479 OF 2025 PETITIONER: SARUN MS AGED 35 YEARS S/O. SAROJAN M.K.,MANGARA HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, CHERAI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683514 BY ADVS. PHILIA KOSHY ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, VARAPUZHA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683517 3 LAKSHMI T.N. AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. NANDANAN T.G., THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPUZHA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683517 4 KIRAN SURESH@KANNAN AGED 32 YEARS, PALLATH HOUSE,MARIKKATH PARMPU, KONGORPPILLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683525 BY ADV Sreekala T.N SC SRI M U VIJAYALEKSHMI . GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C)9479 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26455 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 complaint on its merits and dispose of the same expeditiously. 2. The 3rd respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. They have a three year old daughter born in their wedlock. The 4th respondent is the cousin brother of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner's daughter has disclosed to the petitioner that the 4th respondent has physically and mentally abused the child. The petitioner on coming to learn of the abuse meted out on the child by the 4th respondent, has approached the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent has not taken action in the matter. The inaction on the part of the 1st respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. W.P (C)9479 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26455 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, subsequent to the receipt of Ext.P1 complaint, the 1st respondent had summoned the 3rd respondent and the child and interacted with them. The child has stated that the child has no grievance against the respondents 3 and 4. The Chairperson of the 1st respondent is convinced that the child is safe in the custody of the 3rd respondent. 5. In Shaiju S and others v. Child Welfare Committee, Kollam and others [2021 (6) KHC 573], a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “11. We must at the outset note that the Committee committed grave error in ordering custody to the mother when the matter is pending before the Family Court. The Committee ought to have restrained from entertaining a dispute which is a subject matter of lis between the parties. We must also note that wrangling between the spouses in regard to custody will not confer any power on the Committee to interfere in such matters and give custody to one of them. Going by various provisions, including Section 2(14)(v) of the Act, the Committee's role would arise only when none of the parents is in a position to take care or protect the child or children. The Committee can step into at a stage to protect a child when parents are not in a position to protect the child. The role of the Committee commences from the stage where both parents are not in a position to take care and protect the child. The parens patriae W.P (C)9479 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26455 principle to intervene is to protect the child and act as a parent of the child when parents fail to take care and protect the child. So also is the matter of dispute between spouses. The Committee would be justified in interfering with the custody of child with one of the parent, if that parent is incapacitated or failed completely to take care of the child. 12. The Committee cannot voluntarily interfere with the custody of the children except on a circumstance where it forms an opinion that the child requires care and protection. Merely because the children are isolated from the mother by the father, Committee cannot interfere with the legal custody of the children by the father”. 6. In light of the emphatic proclamation of law in the above decision and that the child is in the custody of its mother and further the petitioner is the father of the child, I am of the definite view that the Child Welfare Committee is not the proper Forum for the redressal of the petitioner's grievance. If the petitioner has a case that the child’s mother is not protecting its best interest, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Family Court and work out his remedies in accordance with law. W.P (C)9479 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26455 In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed by reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the competent court and work out his remedies, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.S.DIAS AJ JUDGE W.P (C)9479 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:26455 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9479/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24-02- 2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09-03-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT SHOWING THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE GMAIL ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09-03-2025