Petitioner challenged the illegal detention of a girl opposing a marriage. Court held detention was not illegal but directed parents to support education, prevent forced marriage, and allow telephone contact.
Petitioner is directed to pursue education and employment. Third respondent directed not to force marriage and to allow daily phone contact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(Crl.).No. 578 of 2012 (S)
PETITIONER:
MUNEER. N S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDAMKUTTICHAL,MADIKAI MADIKAI.P.O,HOSDURG TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW R1,R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.SURESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 578 of 2012 (S)
-2-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DTED 7.9.2012 IN CRIME NO.597/2012 OF NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION.
EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SREETHU BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SREETHU BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NO.II,HOSDURG.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
W. P. (Crl.) No.578 of 2012
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2012
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The petitioner, a Muslim boy filed this Writ Petition alleging that his love Ms.Sreethu S.G. is being illegally detained by her father, the third respondent against her wishes. Pursuant to various orders passed by us Sreethu S.G. accompanied by the third respondent, her father has come to this Court today. Muneer, the petitioner is also present before us. We interacted in detail with Sreethu, Muneer-the petitioner and Satheeshan-the third respondent. What we gather from the interaction which we had with the parties is that Sreethu is not under illegal detention of the third respondent. But Sreethu loves the petitioner, Muneer very deeply and is very much desirous of getting married to the petitioner. The third respondent, Satheeshan told us that
W. P. (Crl.) No.578 of 2012 -2-
he belongs to Kasaragod district where the communal situation is highly volatile. If his daughter is bent upon marrying the petitioner he will not stand in the way. He has only one condition to impose. His daughter should complete studies and secure employment so that she becomes self reliant.
W. P. (Crl.) No.578 of 2012 -3-
Sreethu to accompany her father and stay with him till she gets married. The third respondent is directed to make all arrangements for continuance of Sreethu's studies so that Sreethu ultimately secures an employment. We direct the third respondent and every member of the third respondent's house not to impose any marriage on Sreethu to which she is opposed. In fact, the third respondent told us that he will not think it in terms of a marriage for which Sreethu is not agreeable. We record what he told us. We also direct the third respondent to permit Sreethu to talk to Muneer, the petitioner over telephone every day between 7.00 p.m and 7.15 p.m.
Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE
Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE
kns/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
W. P. (Crl.) No.578 of 2012 -4-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal detention of the third respondent who is opposing the marriage.
Whether the third respondent should ensure the健康监测 and employment of his daughter before marriage.
MUNEER N S/O KUNHABDULLA
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILESHWARAM
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILESHWARAM
SATHEESHAN V S/O LATE KAMALAKSHAN
PIUS C KURIAKOSE
BABU MATHEW P JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
