Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5673
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
USSAINE K.P. – Appellant
Versus
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(Crl.)/321/2021
P.K.IBRAHIM, K.B.FATHIMA FIDHA, SRI. T.K.SHAHJAHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
An adult's consent in marital relationships is paramount, negating claims of unlawful custody absent coercion.
Headnote:
Custody - Daughters - Special Marriage Act - The court examined the custodial status of a daughter who eloped. The act affirms autonomy in marriage; thus, custody was deemed legal as no coercion was demonstrated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner reported his daughter missing after she left with the second respondent. The daughter was found to be in a relationship and expressed her desire to marry him, leading to the petitioner's concerns about her illegal custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the daughter willingly chose to stay with the second respondent, affirming a relationship based on mutual consent, which negated any claims of illegal detention.
Issues: Whether the daughter's custody with the second respondent was illegal or constituted coercion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the daughter, being 18 and having expressed her intent to marry voluntarily, was not under illegal detention, thus supporting her autonomy.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no illegal detention.
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner is concerned about his daughter, who went missing after he dropped her at Vennala at the State Bank of India Branch. She was a student of Pharmacy and turned 18, only in April, 2021. Petitioner was informed by the Sub Inspector, Peruvanthanam Police Station that his daughter has eloped with the 2nd respondent. On reaching Peruvanthanam with family, the petitioner was informed that his daughter is in the custody of the 3rd respondent, an elected member of the local body. Though the petitioner, along with others, visited the 3rd respondent in her house, they were not permitted to talk with the petitioner's daughter. The petitioner apprehended that his daughter is in the illegal custody of respondents 2 & 3.
2. On 01.11.2021, a Division Bench of this Court directed a Woman Civil Police Officer to get a statement from the alleged detenue and also to produce her before the District Legal Services Authority [for brevity, 'DLSA'], Idukki on 05.11.2021 at 10.15 a.m. Today, a statement is placed on record and so was the detenue produced before the DLSA, Idukki with whom we interacted. The detenue in her statement categorically admits the relationship she developed with the 2nd respondent. She also admits to having gone with the 2nd respondent, at around 11 O' Clock, after she came out of the SBI Branch. The 2nd respondent, with the alleged detenue, also appeared before the Peruvanthanam Police Station and informed them about their intention to marry. The couple has also given notice under the Special Marriage Act , on 28.10.2021 to register their marriage. The detenue says that she has regular contact with her parents and even last day she called her mother and talked to her family members. She categorically says that she has decided to marry the 2nd respondent and it is not under any threat or coercion and that it is her desire to live with the
2nd respondent as man and wife.
We find no reason to keep the matter pending.
Since we find no illegal detention, we reject the same.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
