Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
LIJU.Y – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detenue's expressed desire negates detention claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction declined based on clear evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed in favor of familial rights. (Para 4) |
Devan Ramachandran , J.
The petitioner alleges that the alleged detenue is being detained by her father – the fourth respondent and his family because, he is opposed to their relationship.
2. The alleged detenue was, however, produced before us by the 4th respondent and we had an interaction with her. She told us unequivocally, and without any ambiguity, that, though she had affection for the petitioner in the past and though she had spent some time with him, she does not intend to continue with him and that she is not under detention of her parents. She affirmed that she came with her parents and wants to return with them.
3. When the alleged detenue has spoken so clearly and without any reservation, we are certain that we cannot exercise jurisdiction, in a plea for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
4. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed; recording that the alleged detenue has left this Court along with the fourth respondent and her family.
In
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
