Dismissed

Sulekha E.K. v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC9 Jul 2012WP(Crl.)/313/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the custody of the petitioner's daughter following her marriage and conversion. The court examined the circumstances and allowed the petitioner's daughter to go with her husband, closing the petition as no illegal detention was found. No provisions or precedents were cited.

What did the court decide?

Fouziya allowed to go with the 4th respondent; writ petition closed.

Sulekha E.K. Vs the Director General of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012/18TH ASHADHA 1934

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 313 of 2012 (S)

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

SULEKHA E.K., AGED 50 YEARS W/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, IRUKULANGARA HOUSE KANNAMANGALAM P.O., POOCHOLAMADU, VENGARA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶11

SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶14

POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶16

MALAPPURAM

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶18

VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

KURUNGODATH VINEESH

¶20

AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.VISWAN, K.P.BAZAR

¶21

KAREEPARAMBA, NALUKANDAM

¶22

PANTHARANGADI VIA TIRURANGADI

¶23

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADDL.D.G.P. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHID.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0907-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(Crl.).No. 313 of 2012 (S)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION DATED 16/06/2012 OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION

¶30

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDNET DATED 20/06/2012

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶32

(TRUE COPY)

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(Crl) No.313 of 2012

¶35

Dated 9^th July, 2012.

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶38

The daughter of the petitioner (Fouziya) was missing from 15.6.2012. The husband of the petitioner is working abroad. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the 4^th respondent had taken the petitioner's daughter to un-known places for illegal means.

¶39

When Fouziya was produced before court on 2.7.2012, we interacted with Fouziya, her mother and the 4^th respondent and we passed the following order :

¶40

“The petitioner, her daughter (Fouziya) and the fourth respondent (Vineesh) are present. We interacted with all of them.

¶41

Fouziya and Vineesh stated that on 15.6.2012, their marriage was solemnised at Arya Samaj Mandir, Calicut after the girl undergoing conversion as a Hindu. On interacting with the girl, primafacie, we are of the view that she has not understood the things clearly and that she is in a confused state of mind. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after 15.6.2012, Fouziya and the fourth respondent were staying at different places in the house of others whom they did not know. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the girl would have been exposed to danger during the stay of four or five days and only luckily she has escaped. It

¶42

W.P.(Crl) 313/12

¶43

¶44

is stated that thereafter they were residing in a rented house at Kollam, where the fourth respondent was working for quite some time.

¶45

We also allowed Sulekha and her son to interact with Fouziya. Fouziya is adamant that she will not go with her mother and brother.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Fouziya should be admitted in a hostel for a week. Accordingly, there will be a direction to admit Fouziya in the Santhi Nikethan hostel, near Lourdes hospital, Pachalam, Kochi. She shall be taken to the said hostel by a woman civil police officer, not in uniform. Post on 9.7.2012. Fouziya shall be taken to the Court on that day by a woman civil police officer, not in uniform. The expenses for the stay of Fouziya in the hostel shall be met by the petitioner.

¶47

The petitioner and her son (Siraj) would be entitled to visit Fouziya during the visiting hours in the hostel. The fourth respondent shall be entitled to contact Fouziya over phone.”

¶48

On the same day, we passed another order,

¶49

directing Fouziya to be admitted in S.N.V.Sadanam Hostel, Chittoor road, Ernakulam South, as no accommodation was

¶50

available in Santhinikethan hostel.

¶51

Today, Fouziya is produced before Court. The 4^th respondent is also present. Fouziya stated that she wants to

¶52

W.P.(Crl) 313/12

¶53

¶54

go with her husband, the 4^th respondent and that she is not under the illegal detention of the 4^th respondent.

¶55

Taking into account the facts and circumstances

¶56

of the case, we do not find any ground to arrive at the conclusion that Fouziya is under the illegal detention of the 4^th respondent. Fouziya is, accordingly, allowed to go with the 4^th respondent. The learned Government Pleader submitted that sufficient police protection would be given to Fouziya and Vineesh to reach their destination.

¶57

The Writ Petition (Criminal) is, accordingly, closed.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶62

tgs

¶63

(true copy)

Sulekha E.K. v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulekha E.K. v. the Director General 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

T.Sheela Vs P.K.Balasubrahmanyan

Sajini Vs Sunil Kumar

Prathibha Vs Manoj.R.Kumble

Ajithkumar Vs Sandhya

V.Deepak Vs G.Vishnu Preethi

Mini George Vs the State of Kerala