Allowed

Anshad Kunjumon v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC16 Oct 2019WP(Crl.)/352/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court held that willful disobedience of a Family Court custody order by a parent, where police fail to execute the order, amounts to illegal custody. A habeas corpus writ is maintainable to secure the child's custody with the entitled parent, directing the Family Court to expedite pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Directing Family Court to dispose of pending applications within three weeks; respondent police to protect petitioner's interim custody.

Anshad Kunjumon Vs the District Police Chief — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941

¶8

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

ANSHAD KUNJUMON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMON, A.S.MANZIL, PERIGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 510.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518.

¶15

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-690 518.

¶16

4 BINJA BASHEER, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.BASHEER, ASWATHY, ADINADU VILLAGE, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM-690 542.

¶17

5 SAJITH SURESH, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.SURESH ASWATHY, ADINADU VILLAGE, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM-690 542.

¶18

R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH R4 BY ADV. SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY GP-- K B RAMANAND .

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

Harilal, J

Whether the custody of a child with one of the

¶28

parents, in disobedience to the order of the Family

¶29

Court, granting custody of the child to the other

¶30

parent, would amount to illegal custody warranting

¶31

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus?

¶32

Firstly, this Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, under

¶33

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reminds ourselves that, ordinarily, the dispute on custody of

¶34

the children between the parents are matters,

¶35

which must be considered by the Family court,

¶36

having jurisdiction in this respect and a writ of

¶37

habeas corpus cannot be issued to handover the

¶38

custody of the children from one parent to the

¶39

other. But the Supreme Court recently in Tejaswini

¶40

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶41

¶42

Gaud and Others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari

¶43

and Others [ 2019 (3) KHC 167] held thus:

¶44

18.Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the Court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement of the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.

¶45

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶46

¶47

Thus, the decision cited above persuaded us to

¶48

consider the aforesaid question. In the instant case, the petitioner herein has rightly approached

¶49

the family court and the family court passed an order granting custody of the child forthwith to the petitioner. But the wife, who eloped with another person, wilfully refused to obey the order of the court and the family court subsequently issued another order directing the police concerned to execute the order. But, despite the long lapse of time, the police could not trace out the detenue or

¶50

execute the order of the Family court.

¶51

Indisputably, any act or omission in contravention to or disobedience to the order of the court, is an illegal act or omission, as the case may be. Therefore, we are of the view that, where there is

¶52

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶53

¶54

an order of the Family court granting custody of

¶55

the child to one of the parents and directing the other parent to handover the custody of the child to the former forthwith and there is a willful disobedience of the said order and police fails to execute the order, such custody of the child with the parent against whom the order was passed, would amount to illegal custody, warranting issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. It follows that unless the family court exercised its jurisdiction and passed orders and police failed to execute the order, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to get custody of the child by one parent from the other parent, as mere custody with one parent alone is not an illegal custody, warranting issuance of habeas corpus.

¶56

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶57

¶58

We have examined the facts involved in the present

¶59

case, in view of the proposition, which we have laid

¶60

above. The petitioner and the 4^th respondent are husband and wife and the alleged detenue is the child, now aged 5 years, born to them in the said wedlock. The 5^th respondent is the person with whom his wife/the 4^th respondent is living together, after eloping from the society of the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed on the allegation that the detenue/child is under the unlawful detention of respondents 4 and 5, in total disobedience to Ext.P3 order, granting custody of

¶61

the detenue/child to the petitioner and directing respondents 4 and 5 to hand over the custody to

¶62

the petitioner, passed by the Family Court, but 3^rd respondent has not taken any effective steps to

¶63

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶64

¶65

liberate the detenue/child from the illegal custody

¶66

of respondents 4 and 5, despite Ext.P4 order

¶67

directing him to execute Ext.P3 order. According to

¶68

the petitioner, when the 4^th respondent eloped with the 5^th respondent, she has taken the detenue/child also. Thereafter, the child is under the unlawful custody of the 4^th respondent, in denial of the right of access to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said unlawful custody of the detenue/child with 4^th and 5^th respondents, the petitioner had preferred O.P(G&W) No.773/2019 before the Family Court, Chavara and the family court, by Ext.P3 order dated 01.10.2019, passed in I.A.No.1851/2019, granted interim custody of the detenue/child to him. But 4^th & 5^th respondents

¶69

refused to grant custody of the child to him and

¶70

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶71

¶72

thereby wilfully disobeyed the order of the court. Subsequently, in consideration of the safety and welfare of the detenue/child, the family court passed Ext.P4 order on 03.10.2019 directing the 3^rd

¶73

respondent to execute Ext.P3 order dated 01.10.2019. But the 3^rd respondent has not taken any effective steps to execute Ext.P3 order, though the detenue/child was available in the house of respondents 4 and 5. Hence, he is left with no remedy, other than approaching this Court, to liberate the detenue from the unlawful custody of respondents 4 and 5, by the invocation of writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶74

India.

¶75

In compliance with the interim order of this Court, the detenue/child has been produced before this

¶76

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶77

¶78

Court by respondents 4 and 5 and we have interacted with the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent admitted that she has eloped with the 5^th respondent along with the child on 22.08.2019 and she was traced out and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikkara by the Police, on complaint filed by her father and she

¶79

was released after recording her statement. Further she admitted that in her statement before

¶80

the Magistrate court she has expressed her desire to go and live along with the 5^th respondent and now she is living together with the 5^th respondent and the detenue/child. There is no explanation as to why she could not obey the order of the court. Therefore, we find that there is willful disobedience to the order of the family court from the part of

¶81

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶82

¶83

respondents 4 and 5.

¶84

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submits

¶85

that the impugned order was passed in execution of an ex parte order and the 4^th respondent had preferred an application as I.A.No.1942/2019 along with I.A.No.1943/2019, to advance the case. But the

¶86

family court has dismissed I.A.No.1943/2019 on

¶87

14.10.2019.

¶88

We find that in the matter of execution, ex parte decree/order does not make any difference, so long as the same is in force. Having regard to the pendency of I.A.No.1942/2019, the Family court, Chavara is directed to consider and pass orders on

¶89

I.A.No.1942/2019 at the earliest, at any rate, within a

¶90

period of three weeks from today.

¶91

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶92

¶93

If the 4^th respondent is aggrieved by the order

¶94

granting interim custody of the detenue to the petitioner, she is also at liberty to file an objection and family court will consider that objection also. However, the family court is at liberty to pass further orders, determining the interim custody of the child, considering the welfare of the child, till the disposal of the O.P. We make it clear that the child shall be in the custody of the petitioner till the passing of any further orders determining the interim custody of the child, by the family court.

¶95

The 3^rd respondent is further directed to

¶96

provide necessary police aid to the petitioner, for protecting the interim custody of the minor child,

¶97

with the petitioner, in case of any threat or disturbance from the part of respondents 4 and 5.

¶98

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶99

¶100

The W.P.(Crl) is allowed.

¶101

Registry is directed to FAX the judgment to the Family Court, Chavara, forthwith.

¶102

Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE

¶103

sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

¶104

AMV/16/10/2019

¶105

WP(Crl.).No.352 OF 2019

¶106

¶107

APPENDIX

¶108

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶109

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
	OF OP(G&W) NO.7 THE FAMILY COURT	73 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE , CHAVARA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF IA NO.1851 OF
	2019 FILED IN FILED BEFORE THE	OP(G&W) NO.773 OF 2019 FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOSTAT NO.1851 OF 201 2019 FILED BEF CHAVARA DATED 01	COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 9 IN OP(G&W) NO.773 OF ORE THE FAMILY COURT, .10.2019.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE DIRECTION
	GIVEN BY THE DATED 01.10.2019	FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
	MADE BY THE	PETITIONER BEFORE THE
	RESPONDENTS 1 AN	D 2 DATE NIL.

¶110

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶111

TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Anshad Kunjumon v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshad Kunjumon v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.L.Raju, Vs Sibi.K.Varghese

Anil Kumar, Vs Nisha

Dr.Kiren.T Vs Dr.Drisya.D.T

D. Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Raji R.K.

Rajesh George Vs Poozhiupurath Rosa

Rajula S.Bharathan Vs K.Shaji