Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
It is the case of ASIYA ANWAR SHAIKH VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Respondent No.2 was found in a lodge in a raid effected by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pandharpur. An FIR was registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station against 11 accused persons. Respondent No.2 – XYZ being victim of the crime was rescued and was temporarily kept in the custody of a social worker. The Pandharpur Taluka Police filed an application before the learned JMFC, Pandharpur praying therein to issue directions to keep Respondent No.2 – XYZ in the Corrective Institution. Thereafter, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have filed their respective applications before the learned JMFC, Pandharpur praying for granting custody of Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner, who is the believed mother of Respondent No.2 - XYZ. The learned JMFC has recorded the statements of both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. The learned JMFC also directed the Probation Officer to make an inquiry as contemplated by Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “the said Act”).
Accordingly the probation officer after making inquiry submitted his report to the learned JMFC. The learned JMFC rejected the applications of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and thereby sending Respondent No.-XYZ to the above mentioned Corrective Institution i.e. Shaskiya Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila Wasti Gruh, Baramati, Dist. Pune for her care and protection for a period of one year.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned JMFC, the Petitioner herein has filed Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. The Petitioner has also filed application for interim custody of Respondent No.2. The Petitioner as well as the Prosecution have filed their written arguments in the said Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur has dismissed the Appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 20/03/2019. Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, also rejected the Appeal of the Petitioner.
Thus, this petition was filed. The bench refused to grant the custody of the respondent to the mother as she is an adult but reiterated the victim’s right to move freely.
86540
103860
630
114
59824