Dismissed

Rashid Abdul Razak v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018WP(Crl.)/383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 filed for habeas corpus on allegations of illegal confinement of the petitioner’s wife by her father. The court relied on the independent statement of the detenue recorded by a Woman Police Officer, who asserted she was staying with her parents voluntarily and was not detained.

What did the court decide?

This court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 alleging illegal confinement of the alleged detenue.

Rashid Abdul Razak Vs the Director General of Police — 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

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 383 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

RASHID ABDUL RAZAK AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, RASHID MANZIL, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 691556

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA STATE (LAW AND ORDER), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAUPURAM-695001

¶13

2 THE DISTRCIT POLICE CHIEF/ SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.

¶14

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686003.

¶15

4 SHAHUL HAMEED, VELLARIYIL, ALAPRA, ALAPRA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686544.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR GP. SRI. K.B.RAMANAND FOR R1 TO R4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

AMG

¶20

W.P (Crl.) No.383/2018

¶21

-2-

¶22

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. &

¶23

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶24

W.P (Crl.) No. 383 OF 2018

¶25

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Abdul Rehim, J:

¶28

Invoking jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is approaching this court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of his wife Ms.Ajmi by raising an allegation that her father, the 4^th respondent herein, is detaining her under illegal confinement against her free will.

¶29

It is stated in the writ petition that, marriage between the petitioner and Ms. Ajmi (hereinafter referred to as the 'alleged detenue') was solemnized on 24-11-2017 and they were living together till 10-03-2018. The alleged detenue was taken for delivery to her parental home. But now the 4^th respondent is detaining her against her free will. According to the petitioner, enquiries made by him in the locality revealed that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement. Hence the writ petition is filed.

¶30

-3-

¶31

W.P (Crl.) No.383/2018

¶32

When the writ petition came up for admission this court directed the 3^rd respondent to make an enquiry into the allegations of illegal detention. It was directed that, an independent statement of the alleged detenue shall be recorded by deputing a Woman Police Officer. It was specifically directed that such statement shall be recorded in isolation, not in the presence of the 4^th respondent or any other family members or others.

¶33

Today, when the case is taken up, the 3^rd respondent submitted a report enclosing the statement recorded from the alleged detenue. Evidently, a Woman Police Officer deputed from Manimala Police Station had recorded the statement on 30-092018 at 11.30 a.m. In the statement of the alleged detenue, it is mentioned that she was being tortured physically and mentally by the petitioner and his mother since the date of her marriage, by demanding more gold ornaments and money. It is further stated that, the torture continued even after she became pregnant and the petitioner has not cared to attend her medical needs. It is further stated that, the petitioner came to the house of the alleged detenue and quarrelled with her parents. It is further mentioned that, the alleged detenue has to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy and even after informing about the same the petitioner has not cared to visit her or to make any enquiry about

¶34

W.P (Crl.) No.383/2018

¶35

-4-

¶36

the alleged detenue. According to the alleged detenue, she had received 2 letters sent by the petitioner intimating the 'Thalaque' pronounced by the petitioner. It is categorically mentioned in the statement that, she is now staying with her parents on her own will and wish. She is not under any illegal confinement, as alleged.

¶37

Based on the circumstances as mentioned above, this court is convinced that there is no basis for the allegation of illegal confinement.

¶38

Therefore the above writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶44

W.P (Crl.) No.383/2018

¶45

-5-

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.9.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶50

NIL

¶51

AMG

Rashid Abdul Razak v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Abdul Razak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mritun Jaykumar Saha Vs Anupama Devi Ponnaiyan

Niyas Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Remya Babu Vs Bibi Varghese

Geethu.N Vs D. Mohandas

Salam Vs Dr. Shyla

Sumesh S., Vs State of Kerala