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) 14303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
MINI MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 284 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SRIKANTH THAMBAN, SHRI.PRASANTH N.L., SHRI.FIRDOUSE.K.K, SHRI.ALTHAF NABEEL
For the Respondents: SHRI.MOHAMMED MUSHTHAQ S., SHRI.NAHAS H., SMT.LEKSHMI MOHAN

A Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be pursued where the alleged detenue is not under detention, especially amidst ongoing custody disputes.

Headnote:The petitioner contended that her grandson is being unlawfully detained by the 7th respondent, his mother, due to her alleged psychological issues. The court noted that the child was not under detention and highlighted ongoing judicial proceedings between the parties under the Domestic Violence Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition due to the lack of detention of the child.

Table of Content
1. petitioner alleges unlawful detention of grandchild (Para 1 , 2)
2. discussion on child's status and ongoing custody issues (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that her grandson of 5 years is being detained by the 7th respondent – his mother, illegally and unlawfully.

2. As per the case of the petitioner - who is the paternal grandmother of the child (hereinafter referred to as the “alleged detenue”), the 7th respondent is suffering from certain psychological issues - which she tries to establish through Ext.P1; then contending that the continued custody which she illegally asserts over the “alleged detenue” is illegal and unlawful.

3. The 7th respondent was present before us today personally, along with the child; and we allowed the latter to be with the petitioner for some time.

4. We considered this matter after nearly an hour and a half later; and the learned counsel for the parties conceded that the child spent time with his grandmother, though he showed reluctance initially. We are told that the 7th respondent also facilitated the interaction between the petitioner and the “alleged detenue”.

5. When we are called upon to consider a plea of writ of Habeas Corpus, we are only enjoined to decide whether the “alleged detenue” is under detention.

6. In this case, the “alleged detenue” - the child, is with his mother; and admittedly, there is strife between the parents for his custody. Such disputes cannot be allowed to transmute into a Writ Petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus, particularly when we see that they have already initiated judicial proceedings against each other - as manifest from Ext.P4 order of the Jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, obtained by the 7th respondent against the son of the petitioner.

7. That said, the petitioner explains that she has been constrained to approach this Court without her son because the latter is abroad. In our view, this would be of little consequence;

when we notice that the child is not under detention.

In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

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