'Girl Child Is Not Property That Can Be Donated': Bombay HC Disturbed At 'Danpatra' By Gangrape Victim's Father To Godman

A girl child is not property that can be donated, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad

Bench) observed during a bail hearing after it noticed a 'danpatra' according to which the

rape victim's father had allegedly donated her to a self-proclaimed godman.

Justice Vibha Kankanwadi directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to ascertain if

the teen was fit to be declared as a 'child in need of care and protection' as contemplated

under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

When the girl as per her own statement is minor, then why the father who is in all

respect guardian of the girl should give the girl as Daan? A girl is not a property

which can be given in donation…This Court is concerned with the future of the

minor girl and in view of such document coming forward, can't shut the eyes," the

The 'danpatra' came to light during the bail hearing of two villagers, whom the teen

accused of gang rape. The men were booked under Sections 376, 376(D), 341, 323 of

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act.

However, the HC granted them bail after the accused produced documents to show that

the case was a fallout of resolutions passed by villagers to oust the self-proclaimed

godman and his devotees (including the girl and her father) from the temple premises. In

addition, the villagers claimed the godman was a bad influence on the village youth.

In its order, the HC noted that the accused's custody was not required as the charge

sheet was filed and the investigation was completed.

"Before parting, a fact which has come on record through the respondent No.2 (father) is

worth noting and disturbing," the bench said about the Danpatra.

The document styled as 'Danpatra,' was executed on Rs. 100 stamp paper between the

girl's father and the godman. It stated that the girl's father had given his daughter in

donation (Daan) to the Baba, and the Kanyadan was done in god's presence

The court then directed the father to file an affidavit about the incident. The man initially

failed to file the affidavit citing his ill health. However, after he was found to be lying, an

affidavit was filed.

Justice Kankanwadi noted that the godman and not the father filed the affidavit.

According to the affidavit, the godman had adopted the girl in 2018; however, the

adoption process was underway. While the document also stated that the girl was living

with the father, it was utterly silent on what prompted the father to give his daughter up

for adoption.

Wondering the need for a 'danpantra' if it was a genuine adoption, the court directed the

CWC to ascertain if the teen needed shelter.

The bench recorded the CWC's powers under Section 29 of the JJ Act. It noted that the

CWC can hear cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation

of children in need of care and protection, as well as to provide for their basic needs and

protection.

Further Section 30 of the Act dealt with the CWC's functions and responsibilities which

included conducting inquiries on issues concerning the safety and well-being of children.

Justice Kankanwadi noted that she was passing these directions to secure the 17-yearold from being driven into any illegal activity in the future

e