Dismissed

Narayanan U.N. v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC23 Nov 2018WP(Crl.)/431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a Habeas Corpus petition alleging the wife of the second petitioner was illegally detained by respondents 3-5. The court examined the detenue's statement, confirmed she voluntarily left her husband's home due to matrimonial disputes and was living with the respondents of her own free will, citing Supreme Court precedents on liberty.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; detenue set at liberty to go to any place of her choice.

Narayanan U.N. Vs the Circle Inspector 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

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶5

FRIDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶6

WP(Crl.).No. 431 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 NARAYANAN U.N. AGED 62 YEARS S/O LATE U.M. NARAYANAN BATT NARAYANA BHAVAN KARSSERI P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678543 2 VISHNU PRASAD N.S.,S/O.SAMBU NAMBOODIRI, HARI VISHNU NIVAS, 8TH LAMP STREET, AYIUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678510.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NENMARA POLICE STATION NENMARA PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-690514

¶12

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NENMARA POLICE STATION, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-690514.

¶13

3 ABHILASH, S/O.AYAPPAN, KUNNTH HOUSE, THEKKETHARA, AYLUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678510.

¶14

4 MOHANAN, NANTHANI THERUV, CHOMBALAN HOUSE, THIRUCHANGODE P.O., NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶15

5 AISWARYA, W/O.MOHANAN, NANTHANI THERUV, CHOMBALAN HOUSE, THIRUCHANGODE P.O., NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP.SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

C.K. ABDUL REHIM &

¶22

T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(Crl) No. 431 OF 2018 S

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶29

Father and husband of a lady named Mrs.Praveena, are

¶30

the petitioners herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of her corpus and to set her at liberty, by raising an allegation that she is under illegal confinement of the respondents 3 to 5.

¶31

Averments in brief are that, the alleged detenue

¶32

was living with the 2^nd petitioner. On 06.09.2018 she left the

¶33

house by stating that she is going to meet one of her

¶34

friends. But she did not turned up on that day. Enquiries

¶35

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

made by the 2^nd petitioner had revealed that her whereabouts are not known to anybody. The 2^nd petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2^nd respondent, based on

¶38

which a crime was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Subsequent enquiries had revealed that,

¶39

the alleged detenue is in the custody of the 3^rd respondent. Even though the petitioners submitted the details to the police authorities, it is alleged that, no steps were taken to get the alleged detenue released. It is contended that the

¶40

alleged detenue is the legally wedded wife of the 2^nd petitioner and that she is being illegally detained by the respondents 3 to 5. Hence the petitioners are approaching this court seeking the relief as mentioned above.

¶41

When the case came up for admission, this court

¶42

directed the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of illegal detention and to submit a report.

¶43

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶44

-:4:-

¶45

Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent had submitted a report to this court enclosing a statement of the alleged detenue recorded. It was revealed that the alleged detenue was traced out based on the case registered, on 08.09.2018. She was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Alathur on 09.09.2018. She was set at liberty from the Magistrate's court and she had gone willingly along with the 3^rd respondent. The report of the 2^nd respondent is to the effect that the alleged detenue is staying at the house of respondents 4 and 5 at Erode in Tamil Nadu. The 5^th respondent is the sister of the 3^rd respondent and 4^th respondent is his brother-in-law. In the statement of the alleged detenue it is mentioned that, there existed severe matrimonial disputes with the 2^nd petitioner and that she had developed intimacy with the 3^rd respondent. It is also stated that she had gone along with

¶46

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

the 3^rd respondent on her own wish and will and that she is

¶49

living in the house of respondents 4 and 5 on her own wish and will.

¶50

Despite production of the above mentioned statement of the alleged detenue, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, at the time when the alleged detenue was produced before the Magistrate's court, the petitioners got no opportunity to interact with her. The petitioners expressed a reasonable belief that the alleged

¶51

detenue is now staying with the respondents 3 to 5 under coercion or threat and that she is not under free will. Based on such submissions, this court was inclined to issue notice to the respondents 3 to 5 directing them to produce the alleged detenue before this court.

¶52

Today, the respondents 3 to 5 appeared through

¶53

counsel and produced the alleged detenue before this

¶54

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶55

-:6:-

¶56

court. When we interacted with the alleged detenue she

¶57

said that the statement given by her to the police, which is produced before this court, contains true facts and it is a voluntary statement given by her. She said that she is now living in the house of respondents 4 and 5 on her own wish and will. She further submitted that she is not intending to have any reunion in matrimony with the 2^nd petitioner and that she is taking necessary steps for getting dissolution of

¶58

the marriage existing with the 2^nd petitioner.

¶59

We take note of the fact that the alleged detenue

¶60

is a lady aged 24 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶61

contended that, she is the legally wedded wife of the 2^nd petitioner and therefore she cannot be permitted to live with the 3^rd respondent.

¶62

In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶63

Court in Sony Gerry v. Gerry Douglas[2018(2) KLT 783(SC)]

¶64

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶65

-:7:-

¶66

the Apex Court observed that:

¶67

"It needs no special emphasis to state that, attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its own significance. She/He is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation."

¶68

With respect to the permitting of 'live-in relationship',

¶69

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State Of

¶70

Kerala & Ors. [2018 (2) KLT 783(SC)] observed that:

¶71

"Even if the parties are not competent to enter into a wedlock, they have the right to live together even outside the wedlock. It would be out of place to mention that 'live-in

¶72

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶73

-:8:-

¶74

relationship' is now recognized by the legislature itself, which has found its place under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

¶75

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M & Others[2018 (2)

¶76

KLT 571(SC)] the apex court observed that, in cases of Habeas Corpus writ petitions, the role of the court is to see that the detenue is produced before it and to find out about her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from the illegal restraint. What is seminal is to remember that

¶77

the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It was found that, the social values and morals have their space, but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right.

¶78

Considering the dictum contained in the precedents

¶79

cited above, we do not think that this court can curtail the

¶80

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶81

-:9:-

¶82

freedom of the alleged detenue which entitles her to have own

¶83

choice with respect to her life and with respect to the place of

¶84

residence. Since it is found that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement, this writ petition fails.

¶85

Hence, the above writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶86

The alleged detenue is set at liberty to go to any place of her choice with whoever she desires.

¶87

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

¶88

Sd/- T.V. ANILKUMAR, JUDGE, JUDGE .

ul/-

[True copy]

P.S. to Judge.

W.P.(Crl) No. 431/2018

¶93

-:10:-

¶94

APPENDIX

¶95

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶96

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 19/12/2014.

¶97

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6/9/2018.

¶98

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 6/9/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Narayanan U.N. v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan U.N. v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prathiba Rijesh Vs Rijesh Chandrasekhar

K.P. Prasobha Vs Biji N.K.

Beena Sethumadhavan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

P.S. Krishnaraj Vs Deepa Das

Wolter Antony Harrison Vs Agnus Harrison

Anilkumar Vs Treesa