2018 Supreme(Ker) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. CHITAMBARESH, SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
A. Ancy – Appellant
Versus
Station House Officer, Kulathoopuzha Police Station – Respondent
WP (Crl.) No. 42 of 2018 and WP (C) No. 4068 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2018
For the Appellants : C.M. Ebrahim and M. Kabani Dinesh.
For the Respondents: K.B. Ramanand and Sadhana Kumari Eswari.
Headnote:Mohammedan Law, S.352 - Guardian and Wards Act 1890, S. 17 -The principle of personal law as per the guardian and wards act is applicable as the matter and dispute relating to the custody of the children.
V. Chitambaresh, J.
1. Amma endrazhaikatha uyir illaiye Ammavai vanangatha uyarv illaiye.
(There is no life form which does not call for its mother there is no growth in life without respecting the mother) sang K.J. Yesudas for the Tamil movie - Mannan.
2. Master Mohammed Abesag (the detenu for short) aged 5½ years has been staying with his mother after the parents have fallen apart. He is studying in the Lower Kindergarten class in KMJ English Medium School which is near to the house of his mother. His father had divorced his mother on 11.11.2014 by pronouncing Talaq in the presence of the officials of the local mosque. It appears that an agreement was also entered into between his maternal grandfather and his father at the time of divorce. The agreement was necessitated to record the factum of returning the jewels and money by his father to his maternal grandfather. The agreement also provided that his father will have his interim custody for five days during the course of four months. His maternal grandparents were permitted to see him once in a month as per the terms of the agreement. The detenu was at other times to be with his mother only who of course was not a party to the agreement so entered into.
3. The father of the detenu is now employed in Saudi Arabia and the paternal grandparents used to visit him now and then as was agreed. His mother used to leave him with her sister living close-by whenever she goes for employment as a Software Engineer during day time. The paternal grandparents during their usual visit on 27.1.2018 took away the detenu never to hand back. The mother of the detenu tried to contact the parents of her divorced husband over phone which was not of any avail. The mother of the detenu finally lodged a complaint to the Police and a criminal case for abduction has been registered on 1.2.2018. The case has been registered as Crime No. 138/2018 on the file of the Kulathoopuzha Police Station under Section 363 IPC.
4. It is under these circumstances was WP (Crl) No. 42/2018 filed seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenu in court. The allegation is that the detenu has not been attending the school since 27.1.2018 and his whereabouts are unknown. The writ petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu complaining that he is being shifted from place to place. The police as well as the paternal grandparents of the detenu have been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. We issued notice to the respondents in the writ petition and directed the detenu to be produced in court on 7.2.2018.
5. The paternal grandfather of the detenu on his own behalf and as the power of attorney holder of his son abroad filed WP (C) No. 4068/2018. The said writ petition alleging harassment by police was filed on 5.2.2018 after WP (Crl.) No. 42/2018 was filed on 2.2.2018. The parties are at variance as to whether WP (C) No. 4068/2018 was filed knowing the pendency of WP (Crl.) No. 42/2018. The Division Bench before whom WP (C) No. 4068/2018 was listed directed both the cases to be posted together for hearing. The mother of the detenu as well as his paternal grandparents were present in court on 7.2.2018 and we interacted with them. Both have divergent versions as to from where the detenu was collected by his paternal grandparents on 27.1.2018. The mother of the detenu would swear that he was taken away from the house of her sister residing nearby. The paternal grandparents of the detenu would swear that he was collected from a shop near to the house run by a tamilian lady. The fact remains that the detenu was removed from the custody of his mother forcibly without any orders from any court of law.
6. The mother of the detenu refuted the allegation that she has married again or that she is residing with her new husband in a rented house. The mother of the detenu on the other hand asserted that he is being looked after well and has been regularly attending the school. The paternal grandparen