In my opinion the PJ (Principal Judge) of the FAMILY COURT shall be sent back to Judicial Academy by self imposing such harsh child protection Order that also under FAMILY COURT ACT in the name of maintenence to a wife !.
Reasoning with chapter of Law in instance news to have been applied judiciously instead; It is a conflicting comment on Judiciary by me and I stand by it for Contempt be it so and if have patience read down;
1. Family Courts were established to make families (means to unite somehow families)and not to break families. This is the reason Family Courts are heavily critised across India by radicals.
2. The Family Court Judges under FCA,1984 are supposed to make last but also another THE LAST efforts to bind a family together and that is the reason under FCA, 1984 it is intention of the Legislation to add as a Rule that is "Family Courts can make its own Rules to dispense with Justice and not seems to have done Justice kar key". Read its Bare Act to see this Rule in b&w mentioned there !
By this news quoted approach was Justice done to the child ?
NO and
3. There is a huge paradigm shift in approach to child protection before and by establishing Family Courts as per GCA, 1984 where ever possible in India and some of those paradigm shifts are as follows;
FROM welfare of children TO development of children in conflict with Law
FROM institutional & residential care for children TO non-institutional & family based alternative programs
FROM custodial care in institutions TO holistic development through quality child care in institutions.
FROM segregation & isolation from society TO inclusion & mainstreaming in society.
The PJ of this Family Court ignored set principles as laid down by UN Conventions of the Rights of the Child of which India is signatory and Family Court is bound to follow such ratifications clauses, commas to full stops therein. I am saddened to see the draconian approach followed by this PJ that also of a Family Court.
4. Art. 14, 15, 15 (3), 19 (1) (a), 21, 21 (a), 23 (1), 24, 39 (e), 39 (f) and 45 COI have a direct reference and impact on the welfare and development of the nation's children.
5. The solution which this Family Court should have followed as per its wide discretionary powers provided by RULES as laid down in FCA, 1984 is to see aptitude of husband towards manual to semi skilled to skilled working capacity and every district have register of Employees whom 'fixing' this husband should have been done to draw a INCOME. From that income part of maint. should have been recovered to satisfy the Order of the Court as well as wife's present incapacitation. Further the Family Court could easily execute such job oriented Orders by calling to Court registered Employers from local Employment Exchange and asking them to provide as per husband's skill a job to him under (monthly) supervision of the local Jurisdiction Police Station (for making all concerned parties safe and secure) so that not only this husband / natural guardian is gainfully employed but a income is also drawn from his skill sets and wife is also partly paid for arrears in maint. instead of with one stroke three peoples from a family have gone three separate ways by a freak Order is my view.
6. With a Job provided as per discretionary powers of a PJ of a Family Court the child would not have been abandoned and handed over to the Institution where this female child most probably will end up neglected and grew up in a very sorry stage as no "supervision - follow up" by same Court is mentioned except "send the child to an Institution" which I found not a right approach that also from a family Court.
7. It is fundamental responsibility of every adult to "ensure every child a childhood' which is the most basic a adult can ever give to a child. I find this adult responsibility of Court's PJ missing in such news items (Orders of a Family Court).
8. The Family Court under its vast powers should have gone for and or provided in instance news reporting a non - institutional approach as intervention for child protection. The non - institutional services are purely based on Article 20 and 21 of the UN CRC and the conviction that "every child's best interests are met in a nurturing family environment and it is every child's basic right to be brought up in a family" Meaning thereby the PJ of this Family Court could have easily arranged for substitute family care when the child's own family of origin cannot look after him due to special circumstances. Further each District Judge Court everyday gets flooded with Adoption application and CARA representative queuing up in Courts to give their approval or home study reports. I mean this PJ could have taken services of CARA as well as personally called some of these applicants waiting for adoption to have offered after due diligence this unfortunate female child upon adoption to a FAMILY instead of throwing her to institutional care with ONE STROKE OF PEN ! Further it is considered as the best non-institutional service for the orphaned, abandoned, destitute child since it provides permanent planning and substitute care "in a family environment". Well when the birth parents relinquish a child permanently (as in this news reporting), due to compelling circumstances, an adoptive family would be the best alternative for the child without parental care that also for a 3 years female child !
8. A ld. member wishful thinking on IPC section usage here was noticed by me and I say why go extra mile to fish in IPC when under JJA, 1986 (2000 - 2006) under S. 23 you have 6 months imprisonment or fine punishment option available to implement to both natural parents “for abandoning, exposing or intentionally neglecting child or causing him to be abandoned, exposed or neglected such that it is likely to cause the child mental or physical suffering” is what this Section speaks about.
9. Further Family Courts Judges cannot override S. 29 be it that FCA is a special provisions which is about Child Welfare Committee (CWC) recommendations and without referring the case to CWC passing such Orders is bad in eyes of Law is my addendum comment.
10. This is case where "surrender" of a child by the birth / biological parents have taken place and in such cases the JJA, 1986 has laid clear procedures which in my opinion this Judge of a Family Court has not followed and may be not reported by the media whatever….. Some of those procedures are mandatory such as signing away of a DOS (Document of Surrender). The surrender / relinquishment of a child can be done only by the biological parent and not by a Family Court on its own motion! The procedure to be followed for an abandoned child in instance case is that it is as per guidelines of CWC (Child Welfare Committee). This DOS cannot be executed by any relative / guardian of the child so calling relatives to pick child was a futile exercise to wash its hand off which I smell here.
11. Infants / children between 0-3 yrs. are kept in child care institution (CCI) that have a child care home, a foster care home or specialized adoption agency (SAA). Then the CWC passes an Order for the child to be given in safe custody to any of the recognized child care institutions. The procedure to be followed are in S. 41 JJA, 1986 (2000 – 2006) or refer to sections on Adoption. Then the enquiry of the CWC is to be completed within a four month period in the Best Interest of the Child.
Hope PJ’s of Family Court read these comments from generic public and or media becomes more responsible in legal news quotings.... whatever I end this large note feeling sad and visualize how a small female child will miss her reasoning age Diwali for the first time………………………
