SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
SHEELA JOSEPH M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 1801 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AKSHAY VENU, SHRI.N.C.MOHANAN
For the Respondents: SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

The Court upheld the right of an adult individual to choose their living arrangements free from coercion, confirming the principle of personal autonomy.

Headnote:In WP(CRL.) No. 1801 of 2025, the petitioner contended that her daughter-in-law was unlawfully detained by the fifth respondent due to familial disapproval of her marriage. The Court observed that, during proceedings, the alleged detenue expressed a desire to leave with the petitioner, confirming her age of 27, which necessitated intervention. The Court allowed the writ petition, recognizing the free will of the alleged detenue in her decision to return.

Result: The alleged detenue has left the Court along with the petitioner, on her own volition and free will.

Table of Content
1. detenue's desire to return with the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's protective measures for privacy. (Para 7)

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that her daughter- in-law, namely the wife of the her son, is being detained by the 5th respondent, her father, because he disapproves of her marriage.

2.When this matter was considered on 20.01.2026, we were told that the alleged detenue, along with the 5th respondent, was not in Kerala; and therefore, allowed her to appear before us online. 3.However, when the alleged detenue appeared online, we had reason to believe that she was not speaking freely; and we therefore, directed the 5th respondent to produce her before us in person.

4.The alleged detenue was thus available before us and she affirmed that she had married the petitioner’s son. Initially, she said she wanted to return with the petitioner, namely her mother- in- law; but sensing some amount of confusion on her part, we allowed her to interact with the 5th respondent, as also her brother, who was personally present. This interaction continued for about an hour within the court premises; and we talked to the alleged detenue again.

5.The alleged detenue told us that she has affection for her family but that she want to return with the petitioner- her mother -in - law. She voiced an apprehension that, if she were to return with her father and brother now, they might not allow her to make a free choice to live with her husband.

6.When the alleged detenue has spoken so unambiguously and told us unreservedly that she wants to return with the petitioner, we are enjoyed to intervene, especially when all sides admit that she is twenty seven years in age.

7.In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this writ petition and record that the alleged detenue has left this Court along with the petitioner, on her own volition and free will.

To protect the privacy of the parties, we direct the Registry to anonymize their names in all papers.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top