The case centers around a Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP No. 2505 of 2023) filed by Dharani, the mother of a 5ยฝ-year-old girl, seeking custody of her daughter. Dharani temporarily left her daughter in the care of her mother (the 4th respondent) at Mannargudi while she settled in Chennai. However, complications arose when the petitioner’s husband was arrested on December 1, 2023, based on allegations of sexual assault on their daughter, made by the petitioner’s elder sister (the 3rd respondent). Following the arrest, the 3rd and 4th respondents retained custody of the child, refusing to return her to the petitioner, prompting Dharani to file the HCP.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Child Custody: The primary issue in this case was the rightful custody of the minor child amidst allegations of sexual assault against the father.
2. Allegation of Sexual Abuse: The case involved serious charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against the father, and subsequently, the mother was implicated as an abettor in the crime.
3. Misuse of Legal Provisions: The case also highlighted concerns about the potential misuse of the POCSO Act, as the court observed that the charges against the mother seemed to be driven by ulterior motives.
The Court’s Decision:
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan. The court made several key observations and decisions:
1. Custody of the Child: The court, after interacting with the minor child, who expressed a clear desire to stay with her mother, temporarily handed over custody to Dharani. It was noted that the child was living happily under her motherโs care since January 2024, and the court saw no reason to change this arrangement.
2. Quashing of Charges Against the Mother: The court examined the final report filed by the police, which accused the mother of abetting the crime. The court found that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC did not implicate the mother. The court expressed strong discontent with the investigation, noting that the charges against Dharani appeared to be an “afterthought” and a “clear abuse of process of law.” Consequently, the court quashed the charges against Dharani under the POCSO Act, ruling that there was no legally permissible evidence to support her implication.
3. Visitation Rights: The court allowed the grandmother (the 4th respondent) to visit her granddaughter once a month under supervised conditions at a neutral location, emphasizing that the child’s welfare remained paramount.
4. Observations on the Misuse of POCSO Act: The court sternly criticized the misuse of the POCSO Act in this case, stating that the proceedings against Dharani were an example of how legal provisions could be misused to achieve ulterior motives, in this instance, possibly to gain custody of the child.
Also Read
Important Observations:
The court observed:
“We are of the prima facie view that the final report filed by the respondents against the petitioner is a classic example of misuse of the provisions of the POCSO Act as against the petitioner.” This critical remark underscored the court’s concern about the potential misuse of stringent laws like the POCSO Act.
