Dismissed

Binoj Bhargavan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC23 May 2012WP(Crl.)/151/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the illegal detention of a minor child. The court held that custody disputes are the exclusive domain of the Family Court and no further writ directions were necessary, especially as the child expressed a desire to remain with the mother.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed; no further directions are required.

Binoj Bhargavan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934 WP(Crl.).No. 151 of 2012 (S) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

BINOJ BHARGAVAN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. R. BHARGHAVAN, 'AISWARIA' HOUSE NEAR J.B.S. ANGAMALY. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY 683 572.

¶9

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OLLUR POLICE STATION, OLLUR 680 306.

¶10

KAVITHA BINOJ, AGED 36 YEARS

¶11

W/O. BINOJ, MANICKATH HOUSE, KIDANGOOR.P.O.

¶12

ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 572.

¶13

VARGHESE, AGED 65 YEARS

¶14

'MANICKATH HOUSE' KIDANGOOR.P.O.,ANGAMALY

¶15

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 685 572.

¶16

LISSY VARGHESE, AGED 58 YEARS

¶17

W/O. VARGHESE,'MANICKATH HOUSE' KIDANGOOR.P.O.

¶18

ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 572.

¶19

GLADYS JOY

¶20

W/O. JOY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, OLLUR.P.O.

¶21

THRISSUR 686 572.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, ADDL.DGP BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 151 OF 2012

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT IN ORDER DATED 28/12/2011 IN O.P. NO. 2291/2011.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXT.R3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY THE RASHTRA DEEPIKA ON 25.3.2010.

¶30

EXT.R3(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.562/2010.

¶31

EXT.R3C : TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.79/2012 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶32

(TRUE COPY)

¶33

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶34

W.P.(Crl) No.151 of 2012

¶35

Dated 23^rd May, 2012.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶38

The third respondent is the wife of the petitioner. They have two children, viz., Sandra Binoj and Sanjana Binoj. The allegation in this Writ Petition is that Sanjana Bijoj, aged 6½ years is under the illegal detention of respondents 3 to 6. Respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the third respondent. The 6^th respondent is the aunt of the third respondent. There were several litigations between the petitioner and his wife. The wife had initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, against her husband. The third respondent had filed O.P.No.562/10 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, against the petitioner, which was disposed of as per Ext.R3(b) order dated 5.10.2010. That order reads as follows :

¶39

“The Power of Attorney agent of the respondent has filed a statement to the effect that he has no objection in appointing the petitioner as the legal guardian of the minor children.

¶40

Hence this O P is allowed as follows :- that the petitioner is appointed as the legal guardian and custodian of Sandra Binoj aged 10½ years and Sanjana Binoj, aged 4½ years. No costs. The statement filed by the Power of Attorney agent of

¶41

W.P.(Crl) 151/12

¶42

¶43

the respondent shall form part of the decree.”

¶44

Even thereafter, proceedings were pending between the parties before the Family Court. Ultimately, the third respondent filed O.P.No.79/12, before the Family Court, Ernakulam, against the petitioner and one Amrita Salini Paul, seeking divorce. The third respondent has alleged that the writ petitioner is living in adultery with Amrita Salini Paul. O.P.No.79/12 is pending.

¶45

In the Writ Petition, several interim orders were passed by this Court on various occasions. On 24.4.2012, the following order was passed by Division Bench :

¶46

“The third respondent shall produce the second child before the second respondent within a period of two days from today. The second respondent shall interact with the child and her mother and shall submit a report to this Court detailing whether the child is under any illegal detention as alleged. Post on 27.4.2012.”

¶47

Thereafter, the case was taken up for hearing on

¶48

27.4.2012, and the Division Bench passed the following order :

¶49

“Pursuant to our order dated 24.4.2012, the younger child,

¶50

W.P.(Crl) 151/12

¶51

¶52

Sanjana was produced by the mother before the Sub Inspector of Police, Vanitha Helpline, Ollur Police Station, Ollur. The Sub Inspector of Police interacted with the child and has recorded her statements. The same has been produced by the Government Pleader in Court. We have gone through the same. The testimony shows that the apprehension expressed by the father are ill-conceived. The child has expressed her intention that she wants to remain with the mother. Therefore, we are not satisfied that any further directions are required to be issued in the matter at present.”

¶53

There is no change of circumstances. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Review Petition was filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 24.4.2012. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that O.P.426/12 was filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Ernakulam, against the third respondent for custody of the child and that Original Petition is pending.

¶54

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no further directions are required in the matter. Essentially, this is a matter where the dispute relates to custody of the child and that is a matter to be considered by the Family

¶55

W.P.(Crl) 151/12

¶56

¶57

Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶62

tgs

¶63

(true copy)

Binoj Bhargavan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoj Bhargavan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayakrishnan U. Vs Girijadevi

Najeema Vs Muhammed Hussain

Sharafudeen Vs Bindhiyas

Thasaleem Navas Vs the District Police Chief

Usha.S Vs State of Kerala

Miss Anupama Vs Sub Inspector of Police