Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41128
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, K. Babu, JJ
J.RAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.)/103/2021
SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921), SRI.M.S.ANEER, SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
The court upheld personal autonomy in marital choices and emphasized the need for compliance with legal marriage statutes.
Headnote:
Custody - Writ Petition - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Sections relating to marriage obligations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims that his daughter is in illegal custody of the fifth respondent. The court summoned the detenue who confirmed she is living with the fifth respondent voluntarily after a marriage ceremony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegal custody as the detenue stated she was not detained against her will and was in the process of legally formalizing her marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
Issues: Whether the detenue is in illegal custody and the validity of the marriage ceremony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for legal validation of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act while affirming the detenue's autonomy in choosing her living arrangements.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed as the detenue was not in illegal custody.
J U D G M E N T
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The writ petition is instituted alleging that the daughter of the petitioner named Remina, aged 24 years is under the illegal custody of the fifth respondent.
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this court on
9.4.2021, the alleged detenue was brought before this court. We have interacted with the alleged detenue as also the petitioner. The detenue has informed that she is not in the illegal custody of the fifth respondent and she is living with him on her own volition after undergoing a marriage ceremony.
3. True, the alleged detenue and the fifth respondent being persons belonging to different communities, they should have solemnized the marriage in terms of the provisions contained in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 . On being asked to the alleged detenue as to the reason why they have not solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, she has informed that steps are being taken by them to solemnize their marriage under the said statute.
The validity of the marriage ceremony claimed to have undergone by the detenue with the fifth respondent cannot be gone into in a proceedings of this nature, and in so far as we are convinced that the detenue is not under the illegal detention of the fifth respondent, we deem it appropriate to close the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE.
tgs APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.08.2020 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
22.09.2020 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2021
