Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, MARY JOSEPH, JJ
MANOJ – Appellant
Versus
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 406 2015
Habeas Corpus - Minor Custody - Article 226 List - The court found no illegal detention of the minor child as she was living with her mother voluntarily, ruling out habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 and reserving the petitioner's rights to seek other remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for his minor child, alleging that the child was in danger while in the custody of the mother, who had left with another man. Despite various efforts, the child's whereabouts were unknown to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the minor child was not under illegal detention since she was living with her mother, who had left her marital home voluntarily. There were no materials to suggest unlawful custody.
Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the minor child in the absence of illegal detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the minor child was in the custody of her mother and there were no indications of illegal detention, there were no grounds to invoke habeas corpus under Article 226.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J:
The petitioner is approaching this court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his minor child namely, Kumari. Sreenika. Averments are to the effect that the petitioner had married one Smt. Sruthi on 27-05-2013 and the minor child Sreenika was born out the wedlock. The child is now aged 1 ½ years. The petitioner is working at Sharjah. After the petitioner left to his work place at Sharjah, his wife was residing along with his mother in his family consisting of his grandmother and sister-in-law. It is alleged that the petitioner's wife, Smt. Sruthi had left the matrimonial home during August 2015 to her parental house at Palakkad. But the petitioner got information that she had thereafter eloped with a person named Sri. Rajeev Babu, on 06-09-2015. It is mentioned that, all the efforts W.P.(Crl.) No. 406/2015 -2-
taken by the petitioner and his relatives to trace out his wife and child was in vain. Therefore the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the respondent and other police officials. But no effective steps were taken to trace out the child. It is alleged that the petitioner's wife is living along with a person named Sri. Rajeev Babu. But the petitioner apprehends that the life of the child is in danger. It is alleged that the person with whom Smt. Sruthi is now residing is a known 'Goonda' and he is accused in many criminal cases. It is apprehended that he may even cause bodily harm to the child. It is stated that the present whereabouts of the child is not known to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this court seeking direction for release of the child from the custody of his wife Smt. Sruthi and her paramour, Sri.
Rajeev Babu.
2. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had not impleaded either his wife Smt. Sruthi or the alleged paramour Sri. Rajeev Babu as respondent in the above writ W.P.(Crl.) No. 406/2015 -3-
petition. It is evident from the averments in the writ petition itself that the minor child is with the custody of her mother, who is now allegedly residing with Sri. Rajeev Babu. Hence, prima facie the petitioner has not made out any case of illegal detention. This court is not satisfied that there exists any materials to invoke jurisdiction vested under Article 226 for issuing any writ of Habeas Corpus.
3. However, based on the allegation that whereabouts of the child is not known to the petitioner, this court directed the Government Pleader to get instruction from the respondent regarding the action if any taken on the basis of Exts.P1 & P2 complaints. Today when the case is taken up, learned Government Pleader had produced a statement obtained from the respondent, which would indicate that on 14-09-2015 the respondent had received a complaint from one Smt. Kanakamma, W/o. Sreenivasan, who is mother of the petitioner's wife. The complaint in brief is to the effect that her daughter named Smt. Sruthi along with the minor child Kumari. Sreenika were abducted W.P.(Crl.) No. 406/2015 -4-
by one Sri. Rajeev Babu, who is living at Kanjiramkulam, Palakkad. The respondent conducted enquiries on the basis of the above complaint and it was revealed that Smt. Sruthi came to Palakkad about 2 months back, after the petitioner herein had left to Gulf countries. She had left her house on 06-09-2015 and started independent living at a rented house at Kanjikode within the limits of the Valayar Police Station. Subsequently Sri. Rajeev Babu had arranged a rented house to her at Puthussery. The respondent herein had recorded a statement of Smt. Sruthi, which is produced before this court for perusal. It is reported that at present Smt. Sruthi along with her daughter Kumari. Sreenika is living at 'Gautham Quarters', near to Water Tank, Puthussery, within the limits of the Valayar Police Station. On a perusal of the statement recorded from the wife of the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner's wife and child are living in the above sai
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
