IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., P.M. MANOJ, JJ.
Shereena Hakkim, W/o. Hakkim and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. – Respondents
WP(CRL.) No. 592 Of 2024
Decided On : 21-06-2024
LGBTQ+ Rights - Habeas Corpus - Kerala Police Act, Indian Penal Code, Article 21 - The court upheld the right of choice of an adult individual to live with a partner of the same gender, rejecting the parents' plea for psychological evaluation and directing the return of the individual's documents.
Fact of the Case:
The parents filed a writ petition seeking the custody of their adult daughter, who had chosen to live with a partner of the same gender. They alleged that their daughter was lured into joining an online social media group and was suffering from behavioral issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the daughter had made an informed and conscious decision to live with her chosen partner, and possessed the capability to make autonomous choices. The court rejected the parents' plea for psychological evaluation and directed the return of the daughter's documents.
Issues: The main issue was the right of an adult individual to choose their partner and live with them, despite objections from the natal family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right to privacy and autonomy, as well as the recognition of chosen families for LGBTQ+ individuals. It cited legal provisions and international principles supporting the rights of LGBTQ+ persons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upheld the daughter's right to choose her partner, rejected the plea for psychological evaluation, and directed the return of the daughter's documents to her.
JUDGMENT :
(Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.)
The petitioners herein, being the parents of Ms. X (name withheld for privacy), state that Ms. X, aged approximately 23 years and a graduate, has formed an acquaintance with the 5th respondent, who is identified as a member of the LGBTQ+ community. The 5th respondent, along with others, has established an online social media group by name “Mazhavillu'' and they are alleged to have lured their daughter into joining this group. They contend that their daughter is suffering from certain behavioral issues and on previous occasions had to seek treatment under a Counseling Psychologist. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners rely on Ext.P3, a certificate issued by the psychologist, indicating that Ms. X, after counselling, was referred to the Psychiatry Department of the Quilon District Hospital for psychiatric evaluation, treatment and management as she was found engaged in a toxic relationship with the person of the same gender.
2. The petitioners further state that their daughter went missing and they had to lodge a complaint with the police, leading to the registration of Crime No. 815/2024 at the Kottarakkara Police Station under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Ms. X was subsequently located and produced before the Magistrate. The petitioners claim that when they attempted to save their daughter from the clutches and influence of the 5th respondent and her men, a complaint was lodged by the latter, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 836/2024 under various provisions of the IPC, wherein the petitioners and others have been named as the accused. They assert that, under the pretext of dispute resolution, Ms. X was invited by the 5th respondent and subsequently forcefully taken away. Despite lodging a complaint with the police, no action has been taken to date. Complaining that Ms. X is being illegally detained by the 5th respondent, this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
3. This Court issued notice by special messenger calling upon the party respondents to appear in person before this Court along with Ms. X.
4. Ms. X and her partner have appeared before us in person. We have interacted with them while ensuring privacy and safety of the lady. Ms.X stated before us that she has completed her Graduation in English and is also proficient in Tally software. She stated that the 5th respondent is a transman and she has consciously chosen to be his partner. She stated that her parents, under the impression that the petitioner is suffering from some psychiatric issues, forced her to undergo counselling with a view to persuade her to overcome her identity and sexual orientation. As she found that the attitude and behavior of her natal family objectionable and traumatic to her psyche, she left the company of her parents to join the 5th respondent. This prompted her parents to lodge a complaint before the police under the caption “person missing”. She had appeared before the learned Magistrate and had stated in unequivocal terms that the 5th respondent is her chosen partner and she intends to live with him. The learned Magistrate had permitted her to join the 5th respondent. However, her parents and relatives attempted to abduct her and in the melee that followed, they assaulted the 5th respondent and inflicted injuries. She stated before us that she is fearful of retribution and violence at the hands of her natal family as she has decided to live with her chosen partner. She asserted that she is safe in the company of the 5th respondent with whom she intends to stay.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Ms. X is suffering from various
AI
The judgment establishes the right of adult individuals, including LGBTQ+ persons, to make autonomous choices regarding their partners and relationships, emphasizing the right to privacy and non-disc....
The court emphasized the autonomy and personal liberty of adults in choosing their partners, particularly within the LGBTQ+ community, asserting that society should respect these choices without undu....
The court affirmed the individual's right to autonomy in personal relationships, particularly for LGBTQIA+ individuals, recognizing such choices as integral to personal liberty under Articles 19 and ....
The right of a major individual to make their own choices and enjoy freedom as permitted by law.
The court emphasized the importance of respecting an individual's choice and rights, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The welfare of the child is of paramount consideration in child custody disputes, and decisions should be made based on the best interests of the child.
The court ruled that the right to protection under Article 21 does not extend to relationships deemed illegal or immoral, emphasizing constitutional morality over societal norms.
The Court emphasizes the fundamental rights to personal liberty and autonomy in the context of alleged illegal confinement, directing that the detenu must be allowed to pursue her education and caree....
A Habeas Corpus petition seeking the recovery of a missing person is rendered infructuous and liable to be closed when the corpus has already been secured and restored to the petitioner's custody.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.