THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.23039 OF 2011 DATED:24.08.2011 Between: Chintala Bapuji … Petitioner And Child Welfare Committee Government of A.P., Krishna District at Vijayawada Rep. by its Chairman and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.23039 OF 2011 ORDER: This is a peculiar case where the petitioner – father challenges the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 in spite of the fact that the said jurisdiction was invoked by his two daughters, respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner’s daughters had made a complaint for care and protection which was taken up by respondent No.1 – committee. The said committee gave notice dt.10.5.2011 to the employer of the petitioner and had also gave a notice to the petitioner to appear in person on a date specified. The said notice was acknowledged by the petitioner but he endorsed inability to attend on the date fixed. Respondent No.1 – committee thereafter passed orders on 8.2.2011 directing the petitioner to provide basic maintenance of the children at Rs.1,500/- each a month for the next two months and not to disturb the children nor discontinue their studies. Thereafter, some more notices were given fixing fresh date for appearance of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has appeared and he has been complying with the direction to pay Rs.1,500/- for each of the child. During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are several complaints between the petitioner – husband and his wife both under the Hindu Marriage Act as well as under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, apart from the complaints under the Domestic Violence Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the estranged wife of the petitioner who is instigating the children to approach the respondent No.1 that is resulted in the present proceedings. The petitioner also tried to contend that the children, respondent Nos.3 and 4, cannot fall within the definition of ‘child’ in need of care and protection as contemplated under Section 2(d) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition primarily for the reason that the petitioner cannot be allowed to drag his minor daughters to the Court as respondent Nos.3 and 4, especially as they are already facing the heat and trauma of the fights between the petitioner and his wife. The children of the petitioner therefore do not deserve to be dragged into the fight among the parents and the technical arguments sought to be raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are particularly intended to be used against the petitioner’s minor daughters only to deny them the benefit of protection and care. I am also not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the reason that the petitioner has not filed any detailed reply on his part before the respondent No.1 – committee and as such he cannot be allowed to find fault with the direction of the committee. The petitioner has straight away approached this Court with the present writ petition instead of approaching the respondent No.1 by filing a detailed representation/reply which he seeks to urge in this writ petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.1 with a detailed representation/reply as he deems necessary and on filing such representation/reply, respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. No costs. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 24.8.2011 bnr