SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47907

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMAN, V.K.MOHANAN, JJ
A SHAMSUDEEN – Appellant
Versus
C V KUNJAPPAN – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) 17/2008



An adult is free to make personal choices regarding marriage and living arrangements without parental control or claim of illegal custody.

Headnote:

Custody - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Special Marriages Act Section List - The court ruled that an adult can choose to marry without parental consent and is not under illegal custody, ensuring personal liberty as upheld in previous judgments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner alleges his 22-year-old unmarried daughter is unlawfully held by the 7th respondent. She acknowledged her choice to be with him and her intention to marry.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the daughter was a major, free from coercion, and not in illegal custody, reinforcing her right to choose her partner.

Issues: Whether the adult daughter was in illegal custody by the respondents and whether the parents could claim custody over her personal choices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished previous cases as inapplicable, affirming that a major has the autonomy to make personal choices about marriage and living arrangements.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition is closed.

JUDGMENT

Raman, J.

Petitioner alleges that his unmarried daughter, Shali Shams, aged

22 years, is kept in unknown place by the 7th respondent with the aid and connivances of his father, 8th respondent. It is admitted that the petitioner's daughter is a 2nd year MBA student at MES College, Marampally, Aluva and she is staying in the college hostel. According to him, the girl was found missing on 8th January, 2008. On enquiry subsequently it was revealed that the girl was abducted by the 7th respondent and she is under his illegal custody. On 11/1/2008, when the matter came up for admission, we passed an order directing that if the alleged detenue, Shali Shams is under the custody of respondents 7 and 8, she shall be produced before this Court. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up for consideration today, the alleged detenue and respondents 7 and 8 appeared before us. Petitioner is also present. We have interacted with the alleged detenue. She stated that she is a major, that she is aged 22 years, her date of birth is 15/7/1985. This fact is not in dispute. She stated that she is studying for MBA, which is admitted in the writ petition. She also stated that she has gone along with him on her on accord and she decided to marry him. A notice under the Special Marriages Act for this purpose was already given and on the expiry of the notice period they will be getting married. She also said that she was in love with the 7th respondent and her joining with the 7th respondent is not under any threat or coercion and she is not under the illegal custody of any of the respondents as alleged in the writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submitted that the 7th respondent is a graduate and that he obtained a diploma in Fire and Safety Engineering and he is employed in Kuwait.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however placing reliance on two decisions of this Court in Prasadhkumar v. Ravindran (1992 (1) KLT 729) and Sreekesh v. Mohammed Asharaf (2003 (1) KLT 397), would contend that even if the girl has attained majority, the parents are entitled to have the custody of their children. We have perused the above two decisions carefully. In both the above decisions it could be seen that habeas corpus writ petition was filed alleging illegal custody of the girl by respondents 1 and 2 therein, who were parents. In the circumstances, this Court found that the girl is in the custody of parents and it cannot be said that the same is illegal for granting any relief in the habeas corpus writ petition. The above decisions are thus not applicable in the present factual situation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006 (3) KLT 375 (SC))

wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

".........There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives. No offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste......"

4. In Gian Devi v. The superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others (1976 (3) SCC 234) the Apex Court held that a woman who has attained majority is free to stay in any place she likes without constraint by her parents or alleged husband. That was also a petition for habeas corpus filed by Gian Devi who has been ordered to be detained in Nari Niketan, Dehi. The allegation was that Gian Devi had been residing in the house of Ganga Saran, who is the Vice-Principal of a college,

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top