In a significant decision, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C.S. Dias, criticized the practice of shuttling a child between multiple forums in custody disputes, declaring it “detrimental to the child’s paramount welfare.” The court quashed a directive by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Kottayam, in WP(C) No. 35830 of 2024. The ruling emphasized the need for jurisdictional clarity and the primacy of the child’s welfare in legal proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute centered on the custody of a young child caught between estranged parents engaged in parallel legal battles. The petitioner, the child’s mother, approached the Kerala High Court challenging an order issued by the CWC, Kottayam. This order directed the police to produce her and her child before the committee, despite an ongoing custody case in the Family Court, Kottayam.
The child’s father, seeking custody, had initiated proceedings in both the Family Court under O.P. No. 576/2024 and the CWC under O.P. No. 411/2024. The petitioner contended that the father’s petition to the CWC was an abuse of legal process intended to harass her, as the Family Court was already addressing the matter. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, arguing that forcing the child to shuttle between forums was harmful and unnecessary.
Legal Issues and Observations
Justice Dias’s judgment delved into several critical legal issues, offering clarity on the roles and limitations of the Family Court and the CWC:
1. Shuttling the Child Between Forums:
A central observation in the judgment was that “shuttling the child between the two Forums will cause inconvenience to the child and is detrimental to its paramount welfare.” Justice Dias emphasized that moving a child between forums causes undue emotional strain and disrupts their stability. He warned that such actions could compromise the child’s overall well-being.
2. Jurisdictional Conflict:
The Family Court, as the court of competent jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, is tasked with deciding custody matters. In contrast, the CWC’s jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is limited to cases where a child is abandoned, neglected, or in need of care and protection. The court found no evidence that the child in question met these criteria, rendering the CWC’s order unsustainable.
3. Abuse of Legal Process:
Justice Dias observed that filing identical petitions in multiple forums amounted to an abuse of the legal process. Such actions, he noted, not only harass the opposing party but also undermine the efficiency and credibility of the judicial system.
4. Limited Role of the CWC:
The judgment reiterated that the CWC is not an appellate or concurrent forum for custody disputes already under adjudication by the Family Court. Its role is limited to intervening in cases where neither parent is capable of caring for the child. The court highlighted that in the absence of such circumstances, the CWC must refrain from interfering in matters of custody.
5. Precedent Referenced:
The court relied on Shaiju S. v. Child Welfare Committee [2021 (6) KHC 573], which held that the CWC cannot interfere in custody disputes unless both parents fail to care for or protect the child.
The Judgment
Quashing the CWC’s directive, the High Court delivered the following key directions:
– The petitioner was allowed to file preliminary objections before the CWC regarding the maintainability of the father’s petition.
– The CWC was instructed to decide these objections before proceeding further.
– The CWC was prohibited from insisting on the production of the child until the objections were resolved.
– The Family Court’s jurisdiction was reaffirmed as the appropriate forum for custody disputes, with its decisions binding on all parties.
