Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking production of her daughter and children, alleging illegal detention by the fifth respondent in Andhra Pradesh. The Court noted the alleged detainees reside there for over five years and denied relief on jurisdictional grounds.
Writ of habeas corpus dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018
PETITIONER:
MARY GEORGE, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O P.V.GEORGE, PANTHAPILLIYIL HOUSE, PERUVA (P.O.), KEERIKODE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 TO R4 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.B.RAMANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
The petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of her daughter, Smt.Rajeena, aged 36 years, and also her children named Jameema and Jagoshma, before this Court and to set them at liberty from the alleged illegal detention of the 5th respondent.
2. Brief facts stated in the writ petition is that, the petitioner's daughter Mrs.Rajeena (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') was married to the 5th respondent on 31.3.2004 and two girl children were born out of that wedlock, who are presently aged 12 years and 6 years respectively. Since their marriage, the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent were residing together at various places. It is stated that, since the last 3 years they are staying in the
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 3 :
address of the 5th respondent shown in this writ petition, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is raising various allegations that the 5th respondent is ill treating and torturing the alleged detenue and the children. According to the petitioner, she had received Ext.P1 letter written by the alleged detenue, which would indicate that the alleged detenue and the children are confined illegally against their free will. On that premise, the petitioner had submitted a complaint before the 4th respondent. It is alleged that the police authorities have failed to take any effective steps on the basis of such a complaint. The petitioner submitted a further representation before the 3rd respondent, which was also not acted upon. Alleging that the detenue and her children are under illegal confinement of the 5th respondent at the state of Andhra Pradesh, and also alleging failure on the part of the
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 4 :
police authorities in taking any appropriate steps to get them released, the above writ petition is
filed.
3. When the case came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions from respondents 3 and 4, with
respect to action if any taken on the basis of Ext.P3 complaint. Today, the learned Government Pleader had submitted a factual statement, based
on the instructions received from the 4th respondent. It is pointed out that, the marriage of the alleged detenue with the 5th respondent was about 13 years back and since then both of them are not residing within the territorial limits of the 4th respondent. It is stated that the 4th respondent had contacted the local police station which is having jurisdiction at the address of the 5th respondent. The Station House Officer of that police station was requested to contact the
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 5 :
alleged detenue and to make enquiry. It is further mentioned that, on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner the 4th respondent had contacted the alleged detenue over a mobile phone of one of her colleagues. The alleged detenue had denied all the allegations of illegal confinement. It is stated that, the alleged detenue is now working as a teacher in a school near to her place of residence in Andhra Pradesh. It is also mentioned that, she was advised to approach the local police authorities at her place of residence, if she has got any complaint against the 5th respondent. But she had informed that she had no complaint of any ill treatment or illegal detention. According to the 4th respondent, the conversation of the alleged detenue was made available to the petitioner herein through speaker phone. It is also mentioned that, the petitioner had never contacted the alleged detenue since the last five years.
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 6 :
4. From the facts enumerated as above, we notice that the alleged detenue is residing along with the 5th respondent in the State of Andhra Pradesh since the last more than five years. Both of them are working as teachers in a school therein. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding illegal confinement of the alleged detenue has no supporting materials. Further, we notice that the allegation of the petitioner is that the alleged detenue is detained illegally along with her two children at the State of Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly, they are residing there since the last more than five years. It is only on the basis of the alleged letter (Ext.P1) that the petitioner is raising the allegations regarding illegal confinement.
5. Even assuming, without admitting, that the allegations of illegal confinement has any basis, the law can be set into motion only by approaching
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 7 :
the court having territorial jurisdiction at the
place of the cause of action, which is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioner, even if aggrieved, has to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum or court having territorial jurisdiction at the place of residence of the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent. Since no part of course of the alleged cause of action is arising within the territorial limits of this Court, it is not possible for this Court to exercise jurisdiction for issuing a writ of Habeas corpus. It will also be left open to the petitioner to approach any higher police officials of the State, if she is under the belief that the police authorities in the State of Kerala can take effective steps in the matter of getting release of the alleged detenue.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 8 :
that the above writ petition cannot be entertained before this Court, for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed by reserving liberty to the petitioner to take
appropriate steps before appropriate forum/court.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE
Bb
WP(Crl.).No. 425 of 2018 : 9 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY VELLOOR POLICE STATION DATED 6/8/2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
Bb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ of habeas corpus regarding alleged illegal detention of the petitioner's daughter residing in Andhra Pradesh.
Whether the petitioner's failure to produce additional evidence of illegal confinement apart from a single letter affects the maintainability of the petition.
Mary George
State of Kerala
Director General of Police, Kerala
Superintendent of Police, Kottayam
Station House Officer, Velloor
Rajesh Kumar Mondissori English Medium School
C.K. Abdul Rehim
T.V. Anilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
