Before the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. Enquiry, under section 13(1) & 14 of the child right protection act, 2005 Case No. 211 / 2012-13 mt. Anjali Baml . Applicant Vis Arya Vidya Mandir School, Juhu, Mumbai...... Respondent No.1 Capt. Vinay Bambole E sss: Respondent No.2 This matter brought before the Commission on 11/09/2012 by an N.G.O. called Childline and Ms. Anjali Bambole, who is original complainant. The Commission took cognizance, issued notices to the respective parties and listed matter on 18/09/2012. 2. The applicant in her complaint has alleged that her daughter Kum.Aastha, aged 13 years who, is studying in class VII» in Arya Vidya Mandir school at Juhu, Mumbai, has decided to leave the school due to constant mental harassment by school authorities and her father, who’s term with applicant is non cordial. Complainant has alleged that on account of cruel and violent behavior of her husband she Page 1 of 10was forced to leave her husband’s house, along with her two children. 3. It is mentioned in the complaint that cases under various provisions of Domestic Violence Act 2005, Divorce and Maintenance Act are being going on before Family Court at Bandra and Nagpur. The court’s matter is still under process. On the contentions as to get school leaving certificate for her daughter, in the complaint it is mentioned that; when she approached the school, then school had refused to issue school leaving certificate. After failing to get justice from the school and constantly suffering from the hand of her husband, she has approached the various forums ie. family court, court of judicial magistrate and this Commission for redressal of her grievance. A letter written by kum. Astha has been placed before the Commission in which it reveals that she is willing to study in Panchagani. 5. On 18/09/2012 during hearing applicant alongwith representative of Childline and learned advocates representing school were present. Respondent No.2 was not present. During course of hearing an order issued by civil judge, Nagpur was placed by the applicant before the Commission. The court’s observation is as follows : Page 2 of 10“The application is allowed. The respondent is directed to remove his objection for issuing school leaving certificate of daughter Astha, within a week from this order ie. till 10/08/2012. If till 10/08/2012, the respondent Vinay N. Bamobole, father of Astha Bambole fails to remove his objection for issuing school leaving certificate till 10.08.12, the school i. Arya Vidya Mandir, Juhu, Mumbai is directed to issue school leaving certificate of Miss Astha Vinay Bambole to herself or her mother i.e. Mrs. Anjali Vinay Bambole.” 6. The applicant has relied on the section 5(2)&(3) of Right to Education Act, 2009. Which says that where a child is required to move from one school to another, either within a State or outside, for any reason whatsoever, such child shall have a right to seek transfer to any other school, excluding the school specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2, for completing his or her elementary education. For seeking admission in such other school, the Head-teacher of in-charge of the school where such child was last admitted, shall immediately issue the transfer certificate : Provided that delay in producing transfer certificate shall not be a ground for either delaying or denying Page 3 of 10admission in such other school. Provided further that the Head-teacher or in-charge of the school delaying issuance of transfer certificate shall be liable for disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to him or her. 7. Advocate representing school was asked by the Commission regarding reason for non compliance of order of the court, he informed that since order was not produced before the school therefore no question arises for compliance. It is informed that the applicant’s matter is pending before J.MLF.C. Nagpur however denied for any stay order. On account of oral statement given by applicant the Commission has asked from the advocate of Respondent no.1 that on the basis of court’s order, school may not get any difficulties for issuing school leaving certificate. Advocate representing school shows his concern on the Commission's remark, Section 5 of Right to Education Act prescribe that school cannot hold school Leaving Certificate, therefore the Commission has directed the school to follow the order of Judicial Magistrate on condition that she (applicant) should submit affirmed written statement, mentioning that, the order passed on 3/8/2012 is neither revoked nor stayed and still is in application. Page 4 of 108. On 5/10/2012 Respondent No.2 ie. Vinay Bambole approached the commission and demanded copy of proceeding on 18/9/2012 alongwith copy of order if any passed on 18/9/2012. Respondent No.2 has further requested to relook this matter, as it was decided in his absence, and if matter shall not be relooked then it would go against the principle of natural justice. He has placed before the Commission, documentary evidence which indicate that he was absent due to non receiving of notice in time. After considering factual position and records the commission accepted his request and listed matter on 20/10/2012 for hearing. In his written submission Respondent No.2 has labeled various Chagres’s such as suppression of the facts, misguiding the commission by not disclosing the court’s order dated 16/8/2012 against applicant by which the civil court stayed it’s earlier order passed on 38/8/2012. Learned advocates appeared for respondent No. 2 has placed revised érder given by the civil judge before the Commission. The content of order on 16/8/2012 is as : “Order on exh.44 is kept in abeyance till disposal of application below exh.50”. Learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2 has also placed various citation laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme court, in Page 5 of 10the matters where process of court have been abused by the litigants. It is submitted by the respondent no. 2 that in the said matter, court’s process has been abused by the applicant after non disclosing facts, hence applicant deserve to be punished under the provision of contempt of courts Act and requested to recall to its order so that his daughter may be called back from Panchgani. The applicant was present during hearing; she was directed by the Commission to file her submission. On 23/4/2013 when matter came before the commission, the applicant neither attended the procedure nor submitted any reply. On. 23/4/2013 she send a mail expressing her inability to attend the proceeding. In the mail she raised question against chairman of the Commission and expressed her apprehension for unfair justice. In the mail, she denied the charges and tried to establish that, school leaving certificate was issued after the order given by the Commission. However she did not say anything regarding the disclosure of order dated 16/8/2012. 9. After considering rival submission and perusing records, order of the Hon'ble Court’s. The issues for Commission's consideration are as follows : Page 6 of 10I) Whether Applicant was aware the order passed by the civil judge on 16/8/2012 if so then whether she has misguided the Commission by not pointing out order passed by the civil judge on 16/8/2012. ¢ Il) Whether contents of email, can be treated as derogatory remarks against the Commission. Ill) Whether action of the applicant is attracting the provision of Criminal and Civil contempt. IV) Whether Commission can passed order in this matter by invoking Section 5 of Right to Education Act, 2009. V) Whether status quo can be maintained in this matter. VI) Whether applicant is liable to prosecute under contempt of Court’s Act for misleading the Commission After considering the legal issues perusing the records and submission of the advocate, answers to above question are as follows Re: QuestionI & VI) By not placing the civil judge’s order dated 16/8/2012, it is appearing that knowingly applicant did not disclose order dated 16/8/2012, if it is supposed that she was not aware about the order dated 16/8/2012, nevertheless question arises that why she did not approach the school to Page 7 of 10get school leaving certificate on the basis of order dated 3/8/2013. Records reveal that she never approached the school on that basis, therefore suspicious role of applicant may not be ruled out in this matter and beyond doubt, it may be admitted that she was aware regarding order dated 16/8/2012. It is a fact that the Commission in it’s oral order, had mentioned that school may act on order dated 3/8/2012 provided that applicant shall submit written affirmed letter mentioning that order dated 3/8/2012 is still applicable. However records reveal that the school has issued certificate Without taking written affirmed application from the applicant. Thus Action / Conduct of applicant is condemnable therefore respondent No.2 has liberty to approach against the Applicant and school before appropriate forum for further action, Re : Question II & III) Contents of email relating allegation against the chairman is far away from truth even the chairman has no relation with his first wife, both are divorced and separated long back therefore allegation is baseless, without fact and far away from the truth. Nevertheless, on the basis of allegation Chairman has expressed his recusal from the case. It is admitted fact that content of the email is Page 8 of 10attracting the provision of contempt of the Commission, hence, show cause notice should be served upon Smt. Anjali Bambole for her reply. Re : Question IV) The child is above 12 years of age, therefore under Section 84 of I.P.C. she is fully mature and can understand her act and conduct therefore under Section 5 of Right to Education Act and Section 84 of .P.C:; the school is bound to issue school leaving certificate. Re : Question V) School leaving certificate has been issued and kum. Astha is studying at Pachagani. Therefore she has right to continue her schooling. Neither the provision of Commission for protection of Child Right Act 2005, nor Right to Education Act 2009, allow to brought her back in previous school. 10. In view of records submitted by both the parties, order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court, considering provision of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Right to Education Act, 2009 as well as provision of Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005 the recommendations of Commission are as follows. I. The Child is studying at Panchagani, School leaving certificate has also been issued therefore on this matter Commission feel not to make any recommendation. Page 9 of 10 AYIl. To issue, show cause notice against Smt. Anjali Bambole for her reply, regarding allegation, raised by her in the email send on 23/4/2013 and hiding facts from the Commission, By order and seal of Commission. Wi * (A.N. Tripathi ) ay © LES. Secretary Maharashtra state commission for protection of child rights Page 10 of 10