Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
REGI THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE POLICE CHIEF (DGP) – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 375 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN, SMT.A.SIMI
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, SRI. N B SUNIL NATH-GP, SRI ADARSH KURIAN
The court holds that a mature individual's assertion of freedom negates the jurisdiction for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, dismissing the petition accordingly.
Headnote:The court analyzed that the petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus citing illegal detention of her daughter. However, the alleged detenue appeared and confirmed her marriage to the 4th respondent, asserting her happiness and liberty in Doha, Qatar. The court recognized the daughter’s maturity, stating jurisdiction cannot extend in such cases, resulting in a dismissal of the petition. Privacy protection measures for involved parties were mandated by the court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner alleges illegal detention of her daughter. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court accepted the daughter's assertion of freedom. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Para 5) |
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner alleges that her daughter of 32 years is being detained illegally by respondents 4 and 5, in an undisclosed place.
2. However, the “alleged detenue” appeared online before us at 2.30 P.M today; to tell us that she has married the 4th respondent and that she is presently in Doha, Qatar, in employment as a caretaker for the children of an Indian family. She asserted that she is happy with the 4th respondent; and that she has, in fact, told her parents, including the petitioner, about her marriage and her travel, though subsequently. She unequivocally told us that she is not under detention and that she is happy to live her life with the 4th respondent.
3. When the “alleged detenue” speaks as afore and is in Doha, Qatar, we can only accept what she has said and close this Writ Petition.
4. This is because, when the “alleged detenue” tells us that she is not under detention; and when she is admittedly nearly 32 years in age, we cannot exercise jurisdiction on a plea for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, even if it is filed by her own mother.
5. We, therefore, dismiss this Writ Petition, recording all that the “alleged detenue” has told us; hoping that the parties will find peace at least in future.
In order to protect the privacy of the parties, we direct that all their names and identity, including that of the “alleged detenue” be anonymised on all papers. We order the Registry to do so.
Sd/-
