Dismissed

Ganesh Moorthi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2018WP(Crl.)/55/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged the detention of his missing wife and children by a third respondent, seeking habeas corpus. The court summoned the family who stated the wife left voluntarily to escape marital torture. Finding no evidence of illegal confinement, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. The alleged detenue is set at liberty to go wherever she desires.

Ganesh Moorthi Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

THURSDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 19TH ASWINA, 1940

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 55 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

GANESH MOORTHI

¶10

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. MANNI, RESIDING AT KDHP COMPANY QUARTERS, OLD MUNNAR KARA, KDH VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, MUNNAR, PIN-685612.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶15

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLICE STATION, MUNNAR-685612.

¶16

3 SASIKUMAR

¶17

AGED 23 YEARS AGE 23 YEARS, S/O. BABU, CHOKKANADU EAST DIVISION, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, PIN-685612.

¶18

ADDL.R4 & R5 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED

¶19

ADDL.R4THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

¶20

IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶21

ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.7.18 IN WP(CRL) 55/2018

¶22

ADDL.R5THE STATE POLICE CHIEF THIRIUVANANTHAPURAM

¶23

ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3.10.2018 IN WP(CRL) 55/18.

¶24

R1 & R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.GP.SRI. K.B.RAMANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Abdul Rehim, J

¶27

The petitioner is approaching this court raising an allegation that his wife named Smt.Dhanapriya (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') and two of their children named Harshadhashree and Charudhashree are being illegally detained by the 3^rd respondent. It is stated that, the alleged detenue along with the two children are missing from 4.7.2017 onwards; and despite the registration of a case as Crime No. 720/2017 of Munnar Police Station under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, the Police authorities are not taking any serious efforts to find out the alleged detenue and the children and to get them released from the alleged illegal custody of the 3^rd respondent. Based on the above allegations, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the alleged detenue and the children and to set them at liberty.

¶28

The above writ petition was admitted by this court on 15.2.2018. Since then repeated directions were issued to the Police authorities to intensify the investigation of the case and to trace out the alleged detenue and the children. But the Police authorities have failed in their attempt. The District Police Chief

¶29

as well as the State Police Chief were impleaded suo motu as additional respondents 4 and 5. Ultimately, based on the specific directions issued from this court, the Police had traced out the alleged detenue and the children and produced them before this court on today.

¶30

According to learned Government Pleader, the alleged detenue and the children were traced out from Pondicherry along with the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that there was yet another case registered with respect to missing of the 3^rd respondent, based on a complaint lodged by his father. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent is being produced before the Magistrate court on today.

¶31

When we interacted with the alleged detenue she said that, since the date of her marriage in the year 2007, she met out harassments and torture at the hands of her husband, who is the petitioner herein. However she pulled on her life till 2017 and two children were born out of their wedlock. According to her, the children are now aged 10 and 6 years, respectively. She said that, one month before the date of which she left Munnar, she came back to her parental house by leaving the company of the petitioner. She conceded of having gone from her parental house along with the children in June 2017. According to her,

¶32

the 3^rd respondent is a family friend who helped her to escape from Munnar in order to get rid of the constant harassments and torture inflicted from the side of the petitioner. She said that, with the help of the 3^rd respondent she had gone to Pondicherry along with her children and is now staying there at a rented house in the address; No.93, Bharathipuram, Govindashalai, Pondicherry. She said that she is doing some business in making HandiCraft ornaments and other articles. It is said that the children are now put to a School at Pondicherry, viz., St. Antony School, in Std.IV and II, respectively. She had emphatically denied the allegations of illegal confinement by the 3^rd respondent. She also denied of having any relationship with the 3^rd respondent, apart from the fact that the 3^rd respondent had helped her to go to Pondicherry and to find out an appropriate place for her stay along with the children.

¶33

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not find any basis for the allegation that the alleged detenue and the children are under illegally confinement of the 3^rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the children are now kept in the custody of the alleged detenue in a manner denying the rights of the petitioner to have them in custody or access with them. It is for the petitioner to take appropriate

¶34

steps in this regard before the appropriate forum.

¶35

Since it is convinced that the allegations of illegal confinement are not founded based on any maritals, the above writ petition could not succeed. Consequently, the above writ petition is hereby dismissed. The alleged detenue is set at liberty to go wherever she desires.

¶36

Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM, Judge

¶37

Sd/-R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, Judge

¶38

lsn

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NUMBERED AS CRIME NO. 720/2017 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 4.7.2017. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.08.2017 NUMBERED AS CMP NO. 1033/2017 IN THE FILE OF H0NOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVIKULAM.

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶43

TRUE COPY

¶44

P.A TO JUDGE

¶45

LSN

Ganesh Moorthi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Moorthi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Ali Vs Sumayya

Santhosh Kumar Vs Salini

Santhosh Kumar Vs Salini

Dr.Kiran Kumar Vs Dr.Bini Marim Chandi

Zeenath Vs State of Kerala

Umarulfarook N Vs the City Police Commissioner