Dismissed

Ratheesh.C. v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC11 Jun 2012WP(Crl.)/204/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition regarding allegations of illegal detention, the Court observed that the marriage between the petitioner and the detained woman had been registered. Consequently, the Court held the allegation of illegal detention unsustainable and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed as the marriage was solemnized and the petitioner is free to take the woman away upon payment of dues.

Ratheesh.C. Vs the Station House Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 204 of 2012 (S)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

RATHEESH.C,, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, PAZHARNI, MOOLAMCODE (P.O.) VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MANGALAM DAM

¶12

VIA VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶14

ALATHUR, PALAKKAD

¶15

P.C. SHAHUL HAMMED, PULIKKALPARAMB HOUSE, VANDAZHI (P.O),

¶16

PALAKKAD.

¶17

BY ADGP SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(CRL.) NO.204/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C.BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

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

¶28

W.P.(Crl.) No.204 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶32

The petitioner alleged that he was in love with Shajitha, daughter of the third respondent. Shajitha was married to one Basheer. Later, Basheer pronounced Thalak. It is alleged that Shajitha was under the illegal detention of the third respondent.

¶33

On 4^th May, 2012, Shajitha was produced before Court. She denied the allegation that she was under the illegal detention as alleged in the petition. She stated before Court that she wanted to marry the petitioner. The Court ascertained the views of the third respondent as well on 4.5.2012. It is recorded in the order dated 4^th May, 2012 that according to the third respondent, in view

¶34

W.P.(Crl.) No.204/2012

¶35

¶36

of the desire expressed by Shajitha, he was not willing to take any further responsibility in the matter. The Court directed that Shajitha shall be accommodated in Santhinikethan hostel for a period of four weeks and in the meanwhile, necessary steps shall be taken by the petitioner to comply with the formalities under the Special Marriage Act.

¶37

On 28.5.2012, this Court directed that Shajitha

¶38

shall continue to stay at Santhinikethan hostel and that she would be taken out of the hostel for the purpose of registration of marriage. It is submitted that on 8.6.2012, the marriage of Shajitha and the petitioner was registered before the Marriage Officer, Vadakkanchery, Palakkad District. The marriage certificate was produced for our perusal. In view of the solemnisation of marriage of the petitioner and Shajitha, it cannot be said that Shajitha is under the illegal detention of the third respondent. She is free to go with her husband, the petitioner. Necessary dues in the hostel shall be paid by the petitioner and on such payment, he can take Shajitha

¶39

W.P.(Crl.) No.204/2012

¶40

¶41

from the hostel.

¶42

The Writ Petition is accordingly closed.

¶43

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE

¶44

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

csl

Ratheesh.C. v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh.C. v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shini N.P Vs Unnikrishnan K.

Ser Ka.Raju Vs Prince Joy

Krishnakumar Vs Ambily C.

T.K.Gopinathan Vs Nisha

Muhammed Fawas M.T. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattapana

Tahira Vs State of Kerala