Partly allowed

Mohanan Nair v. Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC15 Oct 2012WP(Crl.)/410/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ petition for habeas corpus by father, holding daughter Vrinda is married to R2 Manoj. Court found detention allegation incorrect but directed R2 to allow weekly visitation rights to ensure daughter pursues engineering studies.

What did the court decide?

Writ of habeas corpus declined; Director directed to allow weekely visitation rights to parents to ensure engineering studies are pursued without break.

Mohanan Nair Vs Circle 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 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/23RD ASWINA 1934

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 410 of 2012 (S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

MOHANAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS

¶10

S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR VRINDA NIVAS OORUTTUKALA ATHIYANNOOR NEYYATTINKARA PIN 695121

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶14

NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695121.

¶15

MANOJ

¶16

S/O.DHARMARAJAN D.M BHAVAN KURUVIKALA ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU CHAMAVILA KOTTAKAL P.O PALIODU NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695124

¶17

3. DHARMARAJAN

¶18

D.M BHAVAN KURUVIKALA ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU CHAMAVILA KOTTAKAL P.O PALIODU NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695124

¶19

MAYA

¶20

W/O.DHARMARAJAN D.M BHAVAN KURUVIKALA ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU CHAMAVILA KOTTAKAL P.O PALIODU NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695124.

¶21

WP(Crl.).No. 410 of 2012 (S)

¶22

-2-

¶23

* ADDL. R5

¶24

THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

*[ADDL. R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/09/2012 IN WP (CRL.) 410/2012]

¶26

R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR

¶27

R1 & ADDL. R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABUBACKER

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(Crl.).No. 410 of 2012 (S)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 777/2012 DATED 09/08/2012 EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09/08/2012

¶33

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶34

W. P. (Crl.) No.410 of 2012

¶35

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶38

Read our orders dated 05/09/12, 09/10/12 and 11/10/12. The petitioner accompanied by his wife has brought Vrinda, his daughter over to this Court today. The respondent and his mother, the fourth respondent are also present before us. We interacted with the petitioner and also with respondents 2 and 4.

¶39

We have considered the various materials placed on record. We have gone through the certificate of registration of marriage issued by the Sub Registrar, Arasaradi under the provisions of Tamilnadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. We have indicated in our order dated 09/10/12 that prima facie the above document will show that Vrinda and Manoj

¶40

W. P. (Crl.) No.410 of 2012 -2-

¶41

are married. The birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Neyyattinkara Municipality clearly shows that Manoj has completed the age of 21 on 27/12/11. Under the above circumstances, we hold for the purpose of this Writ Petition that Manoj and Vrinda are duly wedded husband and wife. The principal relief that is sought for in this writ Petition is issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus on the allegation that Vrinda is illegally detained against her wishes by the second respondent, Manoj. We are convinced from the interaction which we had with Vrinda that the above allegation is absolutely incorrect. We decline the relief and dismiss the Writ Petition. However, we direct respondents 2 to 4 to allow visitorial rights to the petitioner Mohanan Nair and his wife Kusalakumari on their daughter Vrinda at least once in a week whenever Vrinda stays along with them. It shall be the obligation of the second respondent to ensure

¶42

-3-

¶43

W. P. (Crl.) No.410 of 2012

¶44

that Vrinda is able to pursue her engineering studies without

¶45

break.

¶46

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶47

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶48

kns/-

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mohanan Nair v. Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan Nair v. Circle Inspector of Police

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

Chekkat Reji Alaxander Vs Reena Alex

Sudesan Vs Praseena Sudesan

Thomas Vs Omana

Seena Vs Jose

Tomychan @ Poulose Vs the State of Kerala

Thankamma Vs Sub Inspector of Police