The Karnataka High Court in the case XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR observed and has held that the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights cannot pass an order wherein granting visitation rights of the child to a parent.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice Jyoti Mulimani in the case observed that the commission being an advisory body and it could frame or suggest policy decisions with respect to the child’s rights to the State Government. Therefore, the Act does not empower and conferred with any power of adjudication or to decide adversarial proceedings and no power has been granted to the commission to adjudicate any list between two parties.
It has been complained by the petitioner-wife to the Commission seeking protection for her child from the respondent-husband. Thus, certain recommendations have been made by the Commission and it has been directed that the father may visit the child every first and third Saturday from 12 noon to 9:00 p.m, and the petitioner will make arrangements to pick up and drop off the child.
It has also been challenged by the petitioner in the plea that the said order which is being submitted that the Commission has no power to pass an order granting visitation rights and, in any case, the proceedings are being initiated by the respondent-husband under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the appropriate forum.
It has also been noted by the High Court that the State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights is a statutory authority; Section 13 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 which enumerates the functions of the Commission.
It has also been held by the court that it being not a dispute that the proceedings under the 1890 Act are pending before the competent court. Thus, the commission could not have passed the order of visitation rights.
Adding to it, the court stated that the commission has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the commission is one without jurisdiction and is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition.
