Mumbai: Observing that her custody must be decided by the Child Welfare Committee, 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 commissioner 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 placed the girl in the NGO’s custody. On her father’s application, an additional sessions judge granted her custody to him. The NGO challenged it, saying the father was “involved in forcing the minor daughter into prostitution (sic).” It contended that the girl comes under CWC’s care and protection under the JJ Act, and the sessions judge overrode his jurisdiction. On June 14, HC stayed the order.
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.