Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD, N.ANIL KUMAR, JJ
ABHIJITH.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.)/132/2020
Habeas Corpus - Detention - No specific Act sections referenced - The court emphasized the individual's right to free movement and rejected parental control over personal relationships, marking the distinction between legal confinement and parental authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Habeas Corpus writ petition alleging that the alleged detenue was being unlawfully restrained by her parents due to their disapproval of her relationship with the first petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged detenue declared her freedom to choose and that the parents' opposition amounted to unlawful confinement. The court directed that no obstruction to her free movement shall be made.
Issues: Whether the alleged detenue was unlawfully confined by her parents against her will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that personal freedom and the right to choose one’s partner are paramount, overriding parental authority in matters of individual choice and minor restrictions imposed by parents cannot equate to legal confinement.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction for the freedom of movement of the alleged detenue.
J U D G M E N T
A.HARIPRASAD, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4. Learned Government Pleader is also heard.
2. This Habeas Corpus writ petition is filed by the first petitioner, Abhijith and his parents. It is averred in the petition that Abhijith is in love with Leethu Victor (alleged detenue), who is the daughter of respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner is working as Finance Executive in Allianz Technology, Techno Park, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram. Alleged detenue has completed her MA degree in English. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents 3 and 4 are opposing to the marriage between the first petitioner and the alleged detenue and she is kept under detention in her house.
3. We interacted with the first petitioner and alleged detenue.
She initially stated before us that she is a free citizen and nobody detained her. However, she has a case that her parents are not in favour of their marriage. Despite having a discussion between the parties in the course of hearing, it appears the respondents 3 and 4 are not agreeable for their relationship.
As requested by the counsel, we allowed the parties to interact again. Thereafter, the alleged detenue informed this Court that she is under illegal confinement of her parents. We hereby direct that the respondents 3 and 4 shall not cause any obstruction or hindrance in her free movement. Recording this submission of the alleged detenue, the writ petition is disposed of.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE amk APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF GIFTS GIFTED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DETINUE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER AND THE RETINUE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE RELEVANT CHAT MESSAGES OF THE PETITIONER AND DETINUE EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY EMAIL SENT TO THE SHO CHAVARA STATION AND DEPY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DATED 19.06.2020 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SSLC AND 12TH STANDARD CERTIFICATE RESPONENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
