Dismissed

Chaithanya Bose v. Director General of Police

Kerala HC25 Nov 2019WP(Crl.)/399/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, the child's mother, sought custody alleging illegal detention. The Court held that custody dispute arose from marital issues, directed parties to Family Court proceeding, and declared no circumstance warranted habeas corpus. Petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Petiton closed. Writ of habeas corpus not warranted. Parties directed to Family Court proceeding for custody.

Chaithanya Bose Vs Director General of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶3

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶4

WP(Crl.).No.399 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

CHAITHANYA BOSE,AGED 30 YEARS, PRANAVAM(C/O.VETTOLLIL)VETTICKAL.P.O, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 314.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.C.U.SANGEETH SMT.AMRITA JAYARAM SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶10

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM PIN-682 035.

¶11

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POLICE, MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, PIN-682 314.

¶12

4 VINEETH KUMAR V.,AGED 34 YEARS, VINEETH BHAVANAM(VATTAYATHUNIRAPPIL), NEDUMAN P.O.,EZHAMKULAM,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-691 556.

¶13

5 L.SARALABHAI,AGED 56 YEARS, VINEETH BHAVANAM,(VATTAYATHUNIRAPPIL), NEDUMAN P.O.,EZHUMKULAM,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-691 556.

¶14

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) R4-R5 BY ADV. SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(Crl.) No.399/2019

JUDGMENT

K. Harilal, J.

The petitioner herein is the mother of the alleged detenue, the child, born to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioner, the detenue being a small child has been kept away from her and the right to care and protection of the mother of the detenue thus have been curtailed by the 4^th and 5^th respondents. According to the petitioner, the act of the 4^th respondent would amount to illegal detention of the child and therefore she sought for a direction to produce the detenue before this Court and hand over the custody to her so as to take proper care of the child.

¶21

The 5^th respondent entered appearance through counsel and submits that the 4^th respondent has already filed O.P.(G&W) No.

¶22

¶23

WP(Crl.) No.399/2019

¶24

1102/2019 before the Family Court,

¶25

Pathanamthitta seeking permanent custody of the child, under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act and the child is not under the unlawful detention of the 4^th and 5^th respondents, as alleged in the writ petition.

¶26

In view of the submissions at the bar, we find that the matter in dispute involved in this writ petition is a dispute in respect of the custody of the child, which arose out of the marital dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent and it cannot be an illegal detention, as alleged in the writ petition. Considering the fact that the 4^th respondent has already approached the family court by filing OP(G&W) No. 1102/2019, the issue in respect of the custody of the child is relegated to the family court concerned. The petitioner is directed to

¶27

WP(Crl.) No.399/2019

¶28

¶29

seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in OP(G&W) No.1102/2019. There is no circumstance warranting issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Hence, this writ petition would stand closed. If the petitioner prefers application to advance the hearing of OP(G&W) No.1102/2019, seeking interim custody of the child, the family court shall advance the case and consider the interim custody of the child, at the earliest, without any delay.

¶30

Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE

¶31

Sd/- C.S. DIAS JUDGE

ncd/26/11/19

WP(Crl.) No.399/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 06/10/19.
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOCOPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 30/01/2016
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/10/2019
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08/11/2019.

Chaithanya Bose v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaithanya Bose v. Director General of Police

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

Rasique M Vs Safnitha A.P

Biju Vs v.Suresh Babu

Puthiyapurayil Fathima @ Pathumma, Vs Fathima T.P.

S.Surendran Vs a.Abdul Majeed

Abraham Paul Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Goldie George Vs Anvy Parangottu Mathew