Dismissed

Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2018WP(Crl.)/390/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed habeas corpus petition for release of his missing daughter allegedly detained illegally. Court found the girl left her home voluntarily with the fourth respondent, married him, and desired to live with him. No basis for illegal confinement found.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; alleged detenue set at liberty to go along with the fourth respondent; undertaking for marriage registration recorded.

Satheesh Kumar Vs 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

THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 12TH ASWINA, 1940

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 390 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O SUNDARESAN NAIR, SHREE SHAILAM, VELLAKKADAVU WARD, NEAR TOLL JUNCTION, PULIYARAKONAM PO, VATTOYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM

¶9

BY ADVS. RANJU MOHAN G & SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 001.

¶13

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

4 BAIJU, AGED 25 YEARS NEAR CSI CHURCH, VANCHIYOORKONAM, MAILADI, PULIYARAKONAM P.O., VATTIYOORKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 573.

¶15

5 SHANMUKHAN,CPM LOCAL COMMITTEE SECRETARY, VILAPPILSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 573. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP.SRI.K.B.RAMANANAD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(Crl) No. 390/2018

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,

¶22

¶23

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(Crl) No. 390 OF 2018 S

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2018

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶30

Father of a girl aged 19 years named Miss. Akhila is

¶31

the petitioner herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of his daughter and

¶32

to set her at liberty, based on the allegation that she is

¶33

being illegally confined by the respondents 4 and 5.

¶34

It is stated in the writ petition that, Miss. Akhila(hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') was missing since 15.09.2018 and the petitioner got a reliable information that she is under the custody of the 4^th respondent.

¶35

According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent is not a man of

¶36

good character and he is accused in various criminal cases

¶37

W.P.(Crl) No. 390/2018

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

registered at Vilappilsala Police Station. The 5^th respondent is a local political leader who is aiding the 4^th respondent in his activities of detaining the alleged detenue. According to the petitioner, despite lodging of a complaint before the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent is not taking any effective steps to trace out the alleged detenue and to get her released from the custody of the respondent. Hence the above writ petition is filed.

¶40

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶41

respondents 1 to 3 submitted on instructions that, based on the complaint of the petitioner, a crime was registered with respect to the missing of the alleged detenue on 15.09.2018 itself, as Crime No.1040/2018 of Vilappilsala Police Station, under section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. It is stated that the alleged detenue appeared before the Police Station on 17.09.2018 and she was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada on the same day. The learned Magistrate had

¶42

set the alleged detenue at liberty and permitted her to go along

¶43

W.P.(Crl) No. 390/2018

¶44

-:4:-

¶45

with the 4^th respondent, as desired by her.

¶46

The 4^th respondent appeared and produced the alleged detenue before this court on today. The 4^th respondent

¶47

is also represented through a lawyer. When we interacted with the alleged detenue she said that her date of birth is 27.07.1999 and she is studying for 1^st year degree course in Gregorian College at Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram. She conceded for having left her parental home along with the 4^th respondent on 15.09.2018. According to her, their marriage was already solemnized at a temple at Kollam on 16.09.2018, as per the religious rites and ceremonies and thereafter she is living with the 4^th respondent as husband and wife. She had emphatically denied the allegations of illegal confinement and expressed her strong desire to go along with the 4^th respondent to lead a marital life with him.

¶48

On behalf of the 4^th respondent it is submitted that, a Certificate of the marriage is yet to be obtained from the temple, namely Nediyathukavu Temple, Kollam. He also submitted that,

¶49

W.P.(Crl) No. 390/2018

¶50

-:5:-

¶51

steps will be taken to get the marriage registered under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, as and when the certificate is obtained from the temple concerned.

¶52

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we find

¶53

no basis for the allegation of illegal confinement. Hence the above writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶54

The alleged detenue is set at liberty to go along with the 4^th respondent. The undertaking made by the 4^th respondent to get the marriage registered before the appropriate authority, is hereby recorded.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE .

¶57

ul/-

Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh Kumar 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

Geethu.N Vs D. Mohandas

Rashid Abdul Razak Vs the Director General of Police

Salam Vs Dr. Shyla

Sumesh S., Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnakurup Vs Jisha T.R

Vishnu Das J. Vs the Director General of Police