In Ummerkutty Nazar v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court examined whether a father could be prosecuted under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 merely for allegedly abandoning his minor child and failing to provide maintenance, when the child was actually living under the care and custody of the mother. The petitioner, who was the sole accused, had been charge-sheeted on allegations that he had actual charge and control over his sixteen-year-old son, had abandoned him and had failed to provide for his basic needs. The proceedings originated from a private complaint filed by the petitioner’s wife, which was subsequently investigated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Issue

Whether a father, who does not have actual charge of or control over his minor child (the child being in the custody and care of the mother), can be prosecuted for the offence of cruelty to a child under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, merely on the ground of non-payment of maintenance and alleged abandonment.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, sole accused in C.C. No. 940/2020 before the JFCM Court-I, Changanassery, was charge-sheeted under Section 75 of the JJ Act on allegations that he, as father of a sixteen-year-old boy, had actual charge of and control over the child, abandoned him, and failed to provide for his basic needs and maintenance. The prosecution arose from a private complaint filed by the petitioner's wife, alleging abandonment and wilful neglect. The complaint was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of a crime and filing of the final report. The petitioner sought quashing of the final report and all further proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's Reasoning

The Court first examined its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, 2023), reiterating that this power is extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety and taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence - without the Court undertaking a mini-trial or assessing evidentiary probative value. Turning to Section 75 of the JJ Act, the Court held that the provision penalises cruelty to a child by a person having actual charge of, or control over the child, where such person assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes, or wilfully neglects the child. The Court identified actual charge or control as an essential statutory ingredient, without which the offence cannot be made out, and held that the allegation of abandonment or neglect must be assessed within that framework rather than in isolation. Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the complaint itself disclosed that the petitioner was working abroad and that the child was residing with and in the care and custody of the petitioner's wife (the de facto complainant). No material indicated the petitioner had actual charge or control at the relevant time. The Court held that mere parentage does not equate to actual charge or control, and that mere non-payment of maintenance by a father not shown to have such charge or control cannot, by itself, attract Section 75 - the statutory ingredients cannot be expanded merely on the basis of the parent-child relationship.

Judgment

The Crl.M.C. was allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 940/2020, pending before the JFCM Court-I, Changanassery, for the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, were quashed.

Legal Significance

The judgment clarifies that "actual charge of, or control over" a child is a mandatory and independent ingredient of the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, distinct from and not automatically satisfied by biological parentage or a maintenance obligation. It reinforces that non-custodial parents cannot be prosecuted under Section 75 solely for non-payment of maintenance or alleged abandonment absent material showing actual charge or control at the relevant time, and reaffirms the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS quashing jurisdiction as confined to a plain-reading test of the complaint's disclosed ingredients.

Link to Official Judgement here

Case Title

UMMERKUTTY NAZAR Versus STATE OF KERALA

Case Number

Crl.M.C. No. 4321 of 2020

Citation

2026KER61563

Court

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Bench

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jobin Sebastian

Date of Judgment

11 August 2026