Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35933
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ
BABU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 223 2016
SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SRI. ABDUL KAREEM, SRI.BABU CHERUKARA, SRI.P.V.PRAKASAN, SMT.A.B.SRILATHA
A voluntarily conducted marriage negates claims of illegal custody, supported by proper registration of the marriage.
Headnote:
Custody - Production of Body - Kerala Registration of Marriage [Common] Rules - Sections Not Provided - Court found no illegal custody as marriage was registered.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged his daughter was in illegal custody after she went missing. Upon investigation, it was revealed that she had married the 5th respondent voluntarily and was not confined against her will.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the allegations of illegal confinement were unfounded as the daughter voluntarily married the 5th respondent, and her marriage was subsequently registered.
Issues: Whether the daughter was in illegal custody and if the writ petition was maintainable under the presented circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that voluntary marriage negated the claim of illegal custody, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The daughter of the petitioner was found missing from
19.06.2016, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for causing production of the body of the detenue, alleging that she is under illegal custody of the respondents 5 and 6.
2. The case projected before the Court was that the daughter of the petitioner, who had just completed 18 years and was a 'Plus 2' student, got an affair with the 5th respondent and she has been taken away, contrary to her will and kept in illegal custody.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 22.06.2016, notice was ordered through Special Messenger to the respondents 5 and 6, simultaneously directing the concerned respondent to produce the body of the detenue. Pursuant to the said order, the detenue was produced before this Court on 24.06.2016 W.P. (Crl.) No. 223 of 2016 and on interacting with her, it was revealed that her marriage with the 5th respondent had already been conducted in a Temple and that she was with her husband. It was pointed out that the marriage was conducted voluntarily, adding that she was not under any illegal custody of anybody. The position as above was recorded, however, observing that the marriage was not registered in tune with the Municipal Common Rules, the parties are directed to register the marriage and produce the marriage certificate.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the marriage has been registered and a copy of the marriage certificate issued in terms of Rule 11 (1) of the Kerala Registration of Marriage [Common] Rules
2008 is placed for perusal of this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6; besides the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the other respondents.
6. In view of the turn of events, this Court finds that the apprehension expressed from the part of the petitioner as to the illegal confinement of the detenue is thoroughly wrong and W.P. (Crl.) No. 223 of 2016 misconceived. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
