Dismissed

Sarath P.S v. District Police Chief, Thrissur

Kerala HC28 Nov 2019WP(Crl.)/418/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking production of an alleged detenue and her release from unlawful detention by her father, the High Court observed that the detenue refused to live with the petitioner after a customary marriage. Consequently, the Court found no unlawful detention and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as the detenue was not found to be under unlawful detention.

Sarath P.S Vs District Police Chief, Thrissur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

SARATH P.S., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O P.R.SASI, PERUMBILLY MANA, MARATHANCODE, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 604.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR THRISSUR RURAL KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 003.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNUMKULAM POLICE STATION, NEAR OFFICE OF THE DY.SUPT.OF POLICE, THRISSUR RD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 503.

¶14

3 JATHADEVAN NAMBOODIRI, THAMARAPILLY MANA, KANJANI, MANALUR, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 617.

¶15

R1-R2 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND R3 BY ADVS. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM SRI.K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

K.Harilal, J.

This writ petition has been filed on the allegation that the alleged detenue is under the unlawful detention of the 3rd respondent, her father. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and the detenue were in love for the last several years and when the detenue attained majority, they have decided to get married at the earliest, in accordance with law. When the 3rd respondent came to know the same, he opposed the proposed marriage. Thereafter on 12.10.2019, the detenue voluntarily left her home and came to the petitioner's house. The petitioner's father immediately informed the same to the 3rd respondent and the detenue was given

¶22

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

accommodation at the residence of the petitioner's close relative. After much deliberation, they have decided to get married and the marriage was conducted on 14.10.2019 at the Thayankavu temple and the marriage is evidenced by Ext.P4 photograph. Following the function at the temple, an application for registration of the marriage was submitted at the Choondal Grama Panchayath, duly signed by the petitioner and the detenue after remitting the prescribed fees and the same is evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6.

¶25

On coming to know of his daughter's marriage with the petitioner, the 3rd respondent visited the petitioner's house. After much discussions with the petitioner and his parents, finally, the 3rd respondent has granted his consent to the marital relationship and

¶26

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

expressed his desire to conduct a formal function on 20.10.2019. The 3rd respondent made a request to take the detenue along with him, so as to conduct the formal marriage, on 20.10.2019. Thus, the 3rd respondent returned home with his daughter on the afternoon of 14.10.2019, the very day of their marriage. But the 3rd respondent retracted his promise and informed the petitioner that the formal function will not be conducted as assured by him. Further, it is learnt that the detenue is under the unlawful detention of the 3rd respondent against her will and wish. He has curtailed her right to free and independent life. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the police to produce the detenue before this Court and set her free.

¶29

In compliance with the interim order of this

¶30

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

¶31

¶32

Court, the detenue has been produced before this Court by the 3rd respondent and we have interacted with the detenue and the petitioner. The detenue unequivocally stated before us that she is not under the unlawful detention of the 3rd respondent, as alleged in the writ petition. But she admitted her customary marriage with the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P4 and their subsequent attempt to register the marriage under Exts.P5 and P6. She further states that she does not want to go along with the petitioner to live in cohabitation with the petitioner under the marriage. According to her, she wants to go and live along with the 3rd respondent in her parental home.

¶33

In view of the statement made before us, by the detenue, we find that the detenue is not under the

¶34

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

¶35

¶36

unlawful detention of the 3rd respondent or anybody

¶37

under him. Hence there is no circumstance warranting invocation of the writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of cohabitation of the alleged detenue with him, he is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies, in accordance with law, before the Family Court and this judgment will not stand in the way of such proceedings.

¶38

With the above observation, this writ petition is

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE Sd/C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶41

RKM

¶42

WP(Crl.).No.418 OF 2019

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE FIRST PAGE OF PETITIONER'S SSLC BOOK NO: M 383756 FOR THE YEAR MARCH 2012. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE FIRST PAGE OF DETENUE'S SSLC BOOK NO:S 422834 FOR THE YEAR MARCH 2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE TEMPLE COMMITTEE REG NO.KUS.250 DATED 14.10.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AFTER THE PETITIONER'S MARRIAGE WITH THE DETENUE ALONG WITH THE PETITIONER'S RELATIVES DATED NIL EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM FOR REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE OF CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 14.10.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.3955630 OF CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 14.10.2019 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.6256547 OF CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 28.10.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2019. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.157545/2019 DATED 29.10.2019.

Sarath P.S v. District Police Chief, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath P.S v. District Police Chief, Thrissur

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

Sibi Jose Vs P.Johnson

Ameer Baiju Vs Sheeba S. Rawther

V.G.Rajesh Vs Megha

Rafeeq Vs Jaseena

Arun Kumar. R Vs State of Kerala

Ansil Vs Asharaf