Dismissed

Joy Mary M.S. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2018WP(Crl.)/369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ for habeas corpus alleging illegal detention and detention of her daughter under the custody of the fourth respondent. Court summoned fourth respondent who produced the daughter. Daughter stated they married under Special Marriage Act, showing marriage certificate and dissolution judgment, and voluntarily living together. Court dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; detenue set at liberty permitted to go along with fourth respondent.

Joy Mary M.S. Vs the State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶5

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 26TH BHADRA, 1940

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 369 of 2018 S

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JOY MARY M.S. THEJUS KALLIYOOR P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695042

¶9

BY ADVS. ARUN V.G. SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶12

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶13

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM P.O.-695020

¶14

4 ROY ANTONY S/O. ANTONY, KARUVELIPPARAMABILILLATH LANE, EDAVANAKKADU, EDVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM-682 502 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SIRAJ MEHABOOB SMT.V.S.SHILPA KALA

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SR.GP SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(Crl) No. 369 /2018

-:2:-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶23

----------------------------------------------------W.P.(Crl) No. 369 OF 2018 S

¶24

-------------------------------------------------------

¶25

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶28

Mother of an young lady aged 27 years, named Suja J.S. (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') is the petitioner

¶29

herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of

¶30

corpus of the alleged detenue and to set at her liberty.

¶31

It is averred in the writ petition that; the alleged

¶32

detenue is working in the Kerala State Road Transport corporation('KSRTC', for short) at Thiruvananthapuram, which job she got under compassionate appointment on the basis that her father, who is the husband of the petitioner herein, died in

¶33

harness, before 18 years. According to the petitioner, the family members were waiting for conducting an arranged marriage for

¶34

the alleged detenue, for which there were proposals under

¶35

W.P.(Crl) No. 369 /2018

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

consideration. While so, the alleged detenue did not return to house from her office on 23.08.2018. According to the petitioner, she was enticed by the 4^th respondent into a deceitful relationship under pressure and threat. It is stated that the alleged detenue is now staying with the 4^th respondent at some unknown place. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent is a man aged 48 years having wife and children. It is alleged that the 4^th respondent is a person of bad antecedents and character having relationship with several others. It is suspected by the petitioner that, the alleged detenue will be misused in the custody of the 4^th respondent for his personally gains. Therefore, by raising an allegation that the alleged detenue is kept by the 4^th respondent without her free consent, the above writ petition is filed. It was also alleged that the 3^rd respondent, despite receipt of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, is not taking any appropriate steps to trace out the alleged detenue and to release her.

¶38

Based on the notice issued from this court, the 4^th

¶39

W.P.(Crl) No. 369 /2018

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

respondent appeared and produced the alleged detenue before this court. The 4^th respondent is also represented through a counsel. When we interacted with the alleged detenue she said that she is a B.Com. graduate now working as 'Junior Assistant' in KSRTC at Thiruvananthapuram. According to her, she left along with the 4^th respondent on 23.08.2018, based on their decision to get married. It is stated that, they have solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Officer, Kuzhuppilly. A copy of the Marriage Certificate issued in this regard is produced for our perusal. It would indicate that a marriage between the alleged detenue and the 4^th respondent was solemnized before the said officer on 11^th September, 2018. She also submitted that, earlier marriage of the 4^th respondent has got dissolved through judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.2426/2015, in a joint application filed by the 4^th respondent and his earlier wife for dissolution of the marriage on mutual consent, under Section 10A of the Divorce Act. A copy of the judgment of the Family

¶42

W.P.(Crl) No. 369 /2018

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

Court was also submitted for our perusal. She said that, the 4^th respondent is a person employed as Driver in “HORTICORP” and now they are residing in the house of the 4^th respondent's sister, at North Parur. The alleged detenue is now staying in a Hostel at Thiruvananthapuram and is pursuing her job in KSRTC. She had emphatically denied all the allegations of illegal detention by the 4^th respondent.

¶45

From the circumstances it is evident that the alleged detenue is now leading a marital life with the 4^th respondent based on the marriage solemnized between them under the Special Marriage Act. We find no basis for the allegation of illegal confinement.

¶46

Consequently, this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The alleged detenue is set at liberty and permitted to go along with the 4^th respondent, as desired by her.

¶47

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶48

Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE .

ul/-

P.S. to Judge.

[True copy]

W.P.(Crl) No. 369 /2018

¶53

-:6:-

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1

¶57

A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03.09.2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT

Joy Mary M.S. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Mary M.S. v. the State of Kerala

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

Surya.S Vs Munshid Ibrahim

Siji Vs Joshi

Sindhu Jai Kishore Vs State Police Chief

Tiji Daniel Vs Roy Panamkoodan

Geethu Rajesh Vs Union of India

Sadiq Hamza Vs Shereenahpallikandi