Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23872
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ
Y. JACOB – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB INJSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 567 2012
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN, SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, SRI.JAI GEORGE, SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
The principles of consent and current desires are paramount in determining the validity of marital claims.
Headnote:
Marriage - Writ Petition - Article 226, Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 - The court examined the validity of the marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act and determined the individual's consent and desires superseded claims for the petitioner's relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging illegal detention of his wife by her father. The petitioner claimed a marriage had occurred, but the wife expressed a desire to return to her parents.
Issues: Whether the marriage between the petitioner and Athira was valid and if the petitioner is entitled to any relief regarding her custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an individual's consent and current wishes take precedence in cases of marital claims, especially when there is a lack of mutual desire to continue the relationship.
Final Decision: Relief denied, directing the petitioner to seek remedy in Family Court.
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose,J This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner who alleges that his wife Athira, the daughter of the 2nd respondent, is illegally detained by the 2nd respondent who is working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.
2. On considering this writ petition for admission, we on
16/11/2012 passed the following order.
“Not admitted. Sri.Shibu Joseph learned senior Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. He will seek instructions from R1 as to the correctness of the allegations in the writ petition.
Issue notice on admission by special messenger to the 2nd respondent. R2 is directed to produce his daughter Athira before this court W.P.(Crl.) No. 567 /2012 2 at 10.15 a.m. On 19/11/2012 and to show cause why the above order for production should not be made absolute. Post on
19/11/2012.”
2.Today Athira is brought to this court by the 2nd respondent her father. We interacted with her as well as the with the petitioner. Athira admitted that she was deeply in love with the petitioner for three years. She also did not in so many words dispute that the some sort of marriage ceremony was undergone by them. But she at the moment does not have any love towards the petitioner and she wants to go back home along with her parents.
3. There is controversy at the Bar as to whether a valid marriage has been taken place between the petitioner and Athira. Going by Ext.P1 certificate produced by the petitioner, which is a certificate of marriage issued under the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, it appears to us prima facie that the petitioner's claim that he and Athira got married in accordance with the provisions of that statute is correct. Whatever that be, as Athira is not willing to join the petitioner, W.P.(Crl.) No. 567 /2012 3 we cannot grant relief to the petitioner. We decline relief observing that remedy of the petitioner may lie before a competent Family Court.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
