Back
2017 Supreme(Ker) 1103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
Asokan K.M. – PETITIONER(S)
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram & Others – RESPONDENT(S)
W.P. (Crl.) No. 297 of 2016
Decided On : 24-05-2017
For the Appearing Parties:Addl. Director General of Prosecution, P. Narayanan, Special Govt. Pleader, M. Ajay, Special P.P. for NIA, P. Ravindran, S. Sreekumar, Senior Advocates, C. Rajendran, C.P. Anil Raj, Liza Meghan Cyriac, P.K. Ibrahim, K.P. Ambika, A.A. Shibi, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, P. Sanjay, A. Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, Advocates.
Headnote:
The Kerala High Court ruled that a 24-year-old Hindu woman, Hadiya, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Shafin Jahan, was not acting of her own free will and was influenced by radical Islamic organizations. The court annulled the marriage and granted custody of Hadiya to her parents, who had filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that she was being held against her will. The court also ordered a full-fledged investigation into the activities of the organizations involved in the case and the lapses of the investigating officer.
Fact of the Case:
Hadiya, a 24-year-old Hindu woman, converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Shafin Jahan. Her parents filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that she was being held against her will and that the marriage was a sham to take her out of the country.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Hadiya was not acting of her own free will and was influenced by radical Islamic organizations. The court annulled the marriage and granted custody of Hadiya to her parents.
Issues: 1. Whether Hadiya converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan of her own free will. 2. Whether the marriage was a sham to take Hadiya out of the country. 3. Whether the investigating officer conducted a proper investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Hadiya was not acting of her own free will and was influenced by radical Islamic organizations based on the following factors: 1. Hadiya had no prior contact with Shafin Jahan before the marriage. 2. The marriage was arranged through a matrimonial site by the 7th respondent, who is a member of a radical Islamic organization. 3. Hadiya's name and identity were changed after her conversion to Islam. 4. Hadiya's marriage was conducted in a hasty manner without informing her parents. 5. Shafin Jahan is an accused in a criminal case and has radical inclinations.
Final Decision: The court annulled the marriage and granted custody of Hadiya to her parents. The court also ordered a full-fledged investigation into the activities of the organizations involved in the case and the lapses of the investigating officer.
Surendra Mohan, J.
1. This writ petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is filed by the father of a girl by name, Ms.Akhila. This is the second time that the petitioner is approaching this Court. The earlier writ petition, W.P.(Crl.) 25 of 2016 was disposed of by another Division Bench of this Court on 25.1.2016 permitting Ms.Akhila, the alleged detenue, to continue her residence with the 7th respondent herein. This writ petition was filed apprehending that the alleged detenue was likely to be transported out of the country. This writ petition was admitted on 17.8.2016 and an interim order directing respondents 1 to 4 to keep her under surveillance and to ensure that she was not taken out of the country without further orders from this Court was issued. The said order is still in force.
2. Ms. Akhila is the only child of Sri.Ashokan, the petitioner, and Smt. Ponnamma. They both belong to the Hindu (Ezhava) community and hail from Vaikom in Kottayam District. Ms.Akhila was therefore brought up in accordance with the beliefs and rituals of Hindu religion. At present, she is aged 24 years and has completed her degree course in Homeopathic Medicine, BHMS (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery). She had joined the Shivaraj Homeopathy Medical College, Salem for her BHMS course. It is not in dispute that, though she had initially resided in the College Hostel, she later on took a house on rent outside the College and started residing there with four other friends. Two of her friends were Hindus, while the other two were Muslims. Among them, she became very close with Ms.Jaseena. She had accompanied Ms.Jaseena to her house and stayed with her a number of times. Her acquaintance with Ms.Jaseena attracted her to the tenets and beliefs of Islamic religion. The petitioner alleges that, she was influenced and persuaded to embrace Islam forcibly by Sri. Aboobacker, father of Ms.Jaseena. It is further alleged that, the 6th respondent is an unauthorised Islamic conversion centre conducted by the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI for short) or the Popular Front of India (PFI for short) formed by the leaders of SIMI, which is a radical organization that has been banned. According to the petitioner, Ms.Jaseena and Ms.Faseena are sisters and daughters of Sri.Aboobacker. The three of them had misguided, misled and forced the detenue to accept Islam.
3. According to him, on 6.1.2016 Ms. Akhila was taken away from Salem by Ms.Jaseena, Ms.Faseena and their father, without informing the petitioner. Therefore, he complained to the Police since she was missing, with no information about her whereabouts. The Perinthalmanna Police registered Crime No. 21 of 2016 initially under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Later on, Sections 153A, 295A and 107 of Indian Penal Code were added and Sri.Aboobacker was arrested. However, the detenue could not be traced out. In view of the above, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(Crl.) No. 25 of 2016 seeking a writ of habeas corpus for her production.
4. On 14.1.2016, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions regarding the action taken on the complaint of the writ petitioner and the investigation made for tracing out the missing girl. The case was thereafter posted to 19.1.2016. On 19.1.2016 the alleged detenue, Ms.Akhila, appeared in person. She also filed I.A. No. 792 of 2016 through her lawyer Adv.P.K.Ibrahim seeking to get herself impleaded as an additional respondent in the writ petition. Accordingly, she was so impleaded. In her affidavit filed in support of her impleading petition, she narrated the circumstances under which she had left her home. According to her, she was aged 24 years and was doing her House Surgeoncy in BHMS Course at Shivaraj Homeopathy Medical College at Salem after completing the course. (The above assertion that she was doing House Surgeoncy Course is a false statement and she has not joined for her House Surgeoncy C
