The Kerala High Court emphasized that when a petition for child custody is already pending before the Family Court, any subsequent attempt by the father to seek identical relief before the Child Welfare Committee is unwarranted. The Court further held that such a parallel process would cause unnecessary inconvenience to the child. Justice C.S. Dias, presiding as a Single-Judge Bench, stated, “The Family Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the 1st respondent in matters concerning the welfare of children. Since the 3rd respondent has elected the Family Court, his subsequent endeavour to approach the 1st respondent for identical reliefs seems to be with an intention to harass the petitioner.”

The petitioner, estranged from her husband (the third respondent), is the biological mother of the child born out of their marriage. She filed a petition before the Family Court seeking the dissolution of her marriage. The respondent-husband, in turn, filed a petition before the same court seeking custody of their child. While these proceedings were pending, the husband also approached the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) by filing a separate petition. Acting on this petition, the CWC directed the Station House Officer to produce both the child and the petitioner before it. The petitioner was not even afforded the opportunity to raise preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this petition. She alleged that the husband’s actions were motivated by an intention to harass both her and the child. Consequently, she filed a Writ Petition challenging the CWC’s order.

The Court observed that the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-husband was strained, with matrimonial disputes, including a petition for the custody of their child, already pending before the Family Court. Despite this, the respondent-husband approached the Child Welfare Committee seeking identical reliefs. Upon examining the petition, the Court noted that the respondent-husband did not have a case that his child was a "child in need of care and protection" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly since the petitioner is the biological mother of the child.

The Court further underscored that filing a second petition for the same relief was unwarranted since the Family Court has the necessary jurisdiction to decide on both interim and permanent custody matters. Despite this, the CWC issued directions to produce the child before it, disregarding the fact that the matter was already under adjudication before the Family Court. The Court held that this approach was procedurally and legally flawed. It also noted that the petitioner must be allowed to present her preliminary objections before the CWC regarding the maintainability of the husband’s petition. “I also hold that Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent is unjustifiable. Shuttling the child between the two Forums will cause inconvenience to the child and is detrimental to its paramount welfare,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the order passed by the CWC, and directed that the petitioner be permitted to appear before the Chairperson of the Committee, either in person or through counsel, to submit her preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the husband’s petition.

Cause Title: X v. Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Kottayam

Citation: 2024:KER:94086

Case No: WP(C) No. 35830/2024

Date: December-12-2024

Bench: Justice C.S. Dias 

[Read/Download order]