1 2026:CGHC:16136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 62 of 2021 Ram Kumar Singh Rajput S/o Late Duryodhan Singh Rajput Aged About 68 Years R/o. Village- Devri/devri Raksha, P.S. And Tahsil Dhamadha, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Women And Child Development, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bha- van, P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Child Welfare Committee Durg (Chhattisgarh) Through- The Chair- person, Child Welfare Committee, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Smt. Chameli Rajput W/o Late Naresh Rajput Aged About 39 Years R/o. Village- Kotni, P.S. Bhatapara, Dist. Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : None. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.13 10:21:50 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 08.04.2026 1 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the void ab initio proceedings purportedly initiated under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act of 2015’) by respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 2/Child Welfare Committee, Durg (for short, ‘CWC’), in an unregistered case that is still pending. The challenge is directed against the impugned application dated 25.11.2020 filed by Childline, Durg (Annexure P-1), the impugned letter/notice dated 12.12.2020 bearing reference No. 624/2020 issued through the S.H.O., P.S. Dhamadha (Annexure P-2), and the consequential impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed therein (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner and his minor grandsons were directed to be produced before the CWC. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “A. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the unregistered case from the respondent No.2/CWC for its kind perusal, in the ends of justice. B. That, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of the unregistered case pending before the respondent No.2/CWC with its 3 consequences being without jurisdiction, illegal, void ab initio, arbitrary and unconstitutional, in the ends of justice. C. That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned application filed by Childline Durg dated 25.11.2020 on behalf of the respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-1) before the respondent No.2/CWC, impugned letter/ Notice dated 12.12.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2/CWC and notice issued by the SHO, P.S. Dhamadha (Annexure P-2) and the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed in the unregistered case (Annexure P-3), in the ends of justice. D. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of the petition and any other alternative, additional writ in favour of the petitioner in the ends of justice.” 2 Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner is the grandfather of two minor children, who have been residing with him even during the lifetime of his son, Late Naresh Singh Rajput, who unfortunately expired on 17.12.2019. It is stated that the respondent No. 3, who is the mother of the said minor children, has been residing separately at her parental home and not with the petitioner. The minor children have been continuously under the care and custody of the petitioner and are pursuing their studies in a regular school, where they are stated to be well 4 settled. The petitioner, being a senior citizen and a retired government servant, has been looking after all their educational, emotional and day-to-day needs. 3 It is further the case of the petitioner that prior to the present proceedings, respondent No. 3 had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg (Rural), by initiating proceedings under Sections 97-98 Cr.P.C., which were registered as Case No. 37/2020. In the said proceedings, a search warrant was also issued; however, upon consideration of the material available on record and the express willingness of the minor children, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 06.03.2020, directed that the custody of the minor children shall continue with the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was further advised to avail appropriate remedy before the competent court having jurisdiction over guardianship matters. The said order has remained unchallenged and has thus attained finality. 4 Subsequently, instead of approaching the competent court of law for adjudication of custody or guardianship, respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings before the Child Welfare Committee, Durg, through an application filed by Childline dated 25.11.2020. Acting upon the said application, the respondent No. 2/CWC proceeded to issue notices through the S.H.O., P.S. Dhamadha, directing the petitioner to appear along with the minor children. The petitioner 5 accordingly appeared before the CWC on 14.12.2020 and again on 21.12.2020 along with the minor children. 5 It is stated that during the course of the said proceedings, no formal case was registered, and the petitioner was neither supplied with a copy of the complaint nor afforded any meaningful opportunity to file a reply. Despite the presence of the minor children before the Committee and their expressed inclination to continue residing with the petitioner, their statements were not recorded. The petitioner further states that the proceedings were conducted in an arbitrary manner, without adherence to any prescribed procedure, and in a manner which, according to him, reflected a lack of neutrality. 6 In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the initiation and continuation of the proceedings before the respondent No. 2/CWC, including the issuance of notices and passing of orders therein, on the ground that the same are without jurisdiction, having been undertaken in an unregistered case and in a manner not contemplated under law. 7 Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entire proceedings initiated before the respondent No. 2/Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Durg, are wholly without jurisdiction, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. It is contended that the CWC, constituted under Section 27 of the Act of 2015, exercises limited statutory powers as defined under Section 29 of the Act of 6 2015 and does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to custody or guardianship of minor children. The impugned proceedings, having been initiated in an unregistered case and culminating in issuance of notice dated 12.12.2020 and order dated 14.12.2020, are thus ex facie without authority of law and liable to be set aside. 8 Learned counsel further submits that the scheme of the Act of 2015 is confined to children falling within the categories of “children in conflict with law” and “children in need of care and protection” as defined under Sections 2(13) and 2(14), respectively. The minor grandsons of the petitioner do not fall within either category, as they are neither alleged to have committed any offence nor are they abandoned, neglected or without care. On the contrary, they are residing with the petitioner, their grandfather, who is duly taking care of their welfare and education. Thus, invocation of jurisdiction of the CWC is wholly misconceived and amounts to abuse of process. 9 It is also submitted that the proceedings before the CWC have been conducted in a manner which is arbitrary and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. No formal application was filed by respondent No. 3; instead, proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application by Childline dated 25.11.2020. Despite this, notices were issued and orders passed without registration of any case, without supplying documents to the petitioner, and 7 without granting any effective opportunity to file reply or rebut the allegations. The petitioner’s request for furnishing documents and opportunity of hearing was declined, thereby rendering the proceedings fundamentally unfair. 10 Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the respondent No. 2/CWC demonstrates clear bias and lack of neutrality. The petitioner, a senior citizen and retired government servant, was ill-treated during the proceedings, whereas respondent No. 3 was accorded preferential treatment. Even when the minor children were produced before the Committee and expressed their willingness to reside with the petitioner, their statements were not recorded and attempts were made to influence them otherwise. Such conduct vitiates the entire proceedings and shows that the authority has acted in a predetermined and arbitrary manner. 11 It is further contended that respondent No. 3 had earlier approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg (Rural), by initiating proceedings under Sections 97-98 Cr.P.C., which were registered as Case No. 37/2020. The said proceedings were decided vide order dated 06.03.2020, whereby custody of the minor children was continued with the petitioner considering their express willingness. The respondent No. 3 was specifically advised to approach the competent court having jurisdiction over 8 guardianship matters. The said order has attained finality, as it has neither been challenged nor set aside. 12 Learned counsel submits that once a competent authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has already passed an order continuing custody of the minor children with the petitioner, the respondent No. 3, if aggrieved, could have availed appropriate remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, ‘Act of 1890’) before the competent civil court. Instead of doing so, she has sought to circumvent the due process of law by approaching the CWC through Childline, which is wholly impermissible and amounts to forum shopping. 13 In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the entire proceedings before the respondent No. 2/CWC, including the impugned notice dated 12.12.2020 and order dated 14.12.2020, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal, deserve to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon settled principles of law that any order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law. Reliance is also placed on judicial precedents holding that disputes relating to custody and guardianship of minor children can only be adjudicated by competent civil courts under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and not by the Child Welfare Committee. It is 9 further relied that violation of principles of natural justice, including denial of opportunity of hearing and non-supply of documents, vitiates the entire proceedings and renders the same liable to be set aside. 15 Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, learned P.L. appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2, submits that upon perusal of the record, it appears that the impugned proceedings and order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) are not in accordance with law. He fairly submits that the CWC, constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is not the competent authority to adjudicate disputes relating to custody or guardianship of minor children. It is further submitted that such disputes fall within the domain of the competent civil court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Therefore, if respondent No. 3 seeks custody of the minor children, she is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy by filing a proper application before the competent court in accordance with law. As such, the matter may be considered in light of the aforesaid legal position. 16 Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of respondent No. 3. 17 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and material available on record, including the documents annexed along with the writ petition. 10 18 The core issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent No. 2/Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Durg, possessed the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute in question, which essentially pertains to custody and guardianship of minor children. 19 Upon a careful examination of the statutory scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, this Court is of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction of the Child Welfare Committee is circumscribed by the provisions contained therein, particularly Sections 27 and 29 of the Act of 2015. The CWC is a statutory body constituted to deal with cases relating to “children in need of care and protection” and cannot assume the role of a civil court for adjudication of inter se disputes relating to custody or guardianship between private parties. Such disputes squarely fall within the domain of the competent civil court under the Act of 1890. 20 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the minor children are residing with the petitioner, who is their grandfather, and there is no material on record to suggest that they fall within the category of “children in need of care and protection” as defined under the Act of 2015. On the contrary, the record reflects that the children are being looked after and are pursuing their education. In such circumstances, invocation of jurisdiction of the CWC, at the instance of respondent No. 3 through Childline, was wholly 11 misconceived and beyond the scope of the authority vested in the said Committee. 21 This Court further finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings before the CWC were conducted in an unregistered case, without adherence to any prescribed procedure and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the complaint/application, nor was he afforded a meaningful opportunity to file reply or present his case. Even the statements of the minor children, despite their presence, were not recorded. Such procedural irregularities go to the root of the matter and vitiate the entire proceedings. 22 Additionally, it is pertinent to note that respondent No. 3 had earlier approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg (Rural), by initiating proceedings under Sections 97-98 Cr.P.C., which culminated in an order dated 06.03.2020, whereby custody of the minor children was continued with the petitioner considering their express willingness. The said order has admittedly attained finality. In such a situation, if respondent No. 3 was aggrieved, the appropriate course available to her was to approach the competent court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Instead, resorting to proceedings before the CWC amounts to bypassing the established legal framework and cannot be countenanced. 12 23 In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent No. 2/CWC has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the dispute relating to custody of minor children, which otherwise squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court under the Act of 1890. 24 For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent No. 2/CWC acted wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining the matter and issuing the impugned notice dated 12.12.2020 and passing the impugned order dated 14.12.2020. The entire proceedings are thus vitiated being without authority of law, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice, and are liable to be declared void ab initio. 25 Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The entire proceedings initiated before the respondent No. 2/Child Welfare Committee, Durg, in the unregistered case, including the impugned application dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P-1), the impugned letter/notice dated 12.12.2020 (Annexure P-2), and the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure P-3), are hereby quashed and set aside. 26 However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of respondent No. 3 with regard to custody of the minor children. Liberty is granted to respondent No. 3 to avail appropriate remedy available to her in accordance with law, if so advised. 13 27 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. 28 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh