Dismissed

Aneesha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2012WP(Crl.)/457/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that disputes between family members regarding child custody involve disputed questions of fact and must be resolved by the Family Court. The writ petition for illegal restraint of custody is closed, directing parties to seek appropriate remedies before the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed with directions to work out remedies before the appropriate Family Court.

Aneesha Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 457 of 2012 (S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

ANEESHA, AGED 29 YEARS W/O.JERIN JOSE, AREEKKATT HOUSE, CHENATHUNADU DESOM CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY (P.O) THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF PLICE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM (GT) 683 572

¶13

K.P.OUSEPH, KORATTY KUNNEL HOUSE, CHEMPANNUR DESOM ANGAMALY (P.O.) ERNAKULAM (DT) 683 572

¶14

ROSY, W/O.K.P.OUSEPH,

¶15

KORATTY KUNNEL HOUSE CHEMPANNUR DESOM, ANGAMALY(P.O.) ERNAKULAM (DT) 683 572

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI SHIBU JOSEPH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(CRL.) NO.457 OF 2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2012.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶23

// TRUE COPY //

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(Crl) No.457 of 2012

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated 19^th September, 2012.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶29

The petitioner is the mother of Tanmia Jerin Jose, aged 3½ years. The marriage between the petitioner and the son of respondents 2 and 3 took place on 25.11.2007 and in that wedlock, Tanmia Jerin Jose was born. The petitioner and her husband were in Dubai for quite some time. The allegation is that after they came back to India, the petitioner was forcibly taken by her husband and in-laws to her house. She was not allowed to take the child with her. It is alleged that the child is in the illegal custody of respondents 2 and 3. The husband of the petitioner has gone abroad. Various allegations are made in the Writ Petition, which are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶30

The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are present. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 raised several contentions in answer to the allegations in the Writ Petition. We are not stating in this judgment, either the allegations made in the Writ Petition or the counter allegations

¶31

¶32

W.P.(Crl) No.457 of 2012

¶33

made on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 at the time of arguments.

¶34

We interacted with the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have brought Tanmia Jerin Jose, the alleged detenue, before Court. The petitioner was given an opportunity to take the child with her for about one hour and to fondle the child. After perusing the averments in the Writ Petition and after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the disputes between the parties are to be resolved by the Family Court. The disputed questions of fact involved in the case cannot be decided in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition.

¶35

In the facts and circumstances, we close the Writ

¶36

Petition, leaving open the rights of parties to work out their remedies before the appropriate Family Court.

¶37

sd/ K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶38

sd/ M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶39

tgs

Aneesha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesha v. State of Kerala

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

Bindu Thomas Vs Thomaskutty Sebastian

Suveesh Vs Renuka

N.Rajesh Vs P.v.Purushothaman

Roy, S/O.Poulose Vs Sherly, D/O.Mathayi

Dr.Subin Thomas Vs Smt.Elvina Abraham

Reshmi Vs Pramesh Pillai