Mumbai: Observing that her custody must be decided by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Bombay High Court directed the CWC (Mumbai suburban) to decide applications by the mother and father of a 15-year-old human trafficking survivor.
“The Child Welfare Committee shall decide the pending application of the mother of the victim (sic) and if the father of the victim files an application within one week from today, it will be decided with the application of the mother on its own merits within four weeks,” said Justice Shivkumar Dige on Nov 21.
The petition by Rescue Foundation stated that on March 28, the girl was rescued by the anti-human trafficking cell of the Mira Bhayandar Vasai Virar police commissionerate in a trap at Bhayandar (E) by sending a dummy customer. Navghar police registered an FIR under IPC, Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, Pocso, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act.
The sessions court, Thane, placed the girl in the NGO’s custody. On her father’s application, the additional sessions judge on May 17 granted her custody to him. The NGO challenged the order saying the father was “involved in forcing the minor daughter into prostitution (sic).” The NGO’s superintendent and the probation officer had informed the judge that they had not released the girl as she comes under CWC’s care and protection under the JJ Act. However he said he could not change the order and asked the NGO to appeal in HC.
The petition said the sessions judge’s order is illegal and overrode CWC’s jurisdiction. On June 14, HC stayed it.
During the final hearing, the NGO’s advocate Ashley Cusher cited Bombay HC’s 2009 judgment, where it observed that the custody of a minor victim must be decided by the CWC and not by the sessions court. The CWC’s advocate said the mother’s application for custody is pending. If the father also files a fresh application seeking custody, it would decide it on merit. The father’s advocate said he will file a fresh application for her custody.
Justice Dige noted that HC’s 2009 judgment laid guidelines, including that “the juvenile should be released only to the care and custody of a parent/guardian after such parent/guardian has been found fit by the Child Welfare Committee to have the care and custody of the rescued juvenile.” “The issue of custody of the victim has to be decided by the Child Welfare Committee,” he said, and quashed and set aside the May 17 order.