The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition filed by a husband seeking the production of his wife, held that the alleged detenue was a free citizen uninterested in returning with the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as it was found to have no merit.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(Crl.).No.13 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
JOSE N.U, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.NELSON, KONDODIKKAL, ERUMBIL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN
RESPONDENTS/S:
1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA SUB DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695124.
R1 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R2 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No.13 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent
Nos.3 to 5.
'' The petitioner lured me to go with him on 28/01/2016 convincing that he had converted to Hinduism, I am a Hindu by birth following Hindu rituals and the petitioner is a Christian, it is true that the petitioner tied nupital knot at Lord Siva Temple at Aruvikkarai made believing me that he has adopted Hinduism and converted as Hindu, even though we started living together at his house at Neyyatinkara the marriage was not consummated, we
WP(Crl.).No.13 OF 2020 3
resided together for few days lastly at my mother's house a Myladi, Kanyakumari District, after four months of tying nuptal knot he left me without any information, on realizing that the petitioner deserted me I started living permanently at my family house with my parents. There was no contact between me and the petitioner after his desertion. I myself on my own volition filed H.M.O.P. No.33/2018 before the Family Court, Kanyakumari division at Nagarcoil for Divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The family court at Nagercoil is perfectly having jurisdiction to try the matter, I am advised, since, we have resided lastly together within the jurisdiction of that court, at my ancestral home there. Despite repeated notice at his family house address, the petitioner failed to appear before the Family Court in the proceedings and the notice was returned as unclaimed. Paper publication was ordered and the learned Family Court after considering the evidence allowed Dissolution of marriage between myself and the petitioner, on 12/06/2018 passed the judgment and Decree. The true copy of the Judgment and Decree is already produced by my father, the 3rd respondent.
It is submitted that after Dissolution of the marriage with the petitioner, I got married to Sri.Sadha, on 11/08/2018 as per customary rites prevailing in our community. A child was born in the said wedlock on 12.08.2019, now he is aged 5 months and I am nursing him, leading a peaceful married life with my husband Mr.Sadha at Thambaram, Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner in order to disturb my peaceful life has filed Habeas Corpus petition with malafide intention, even after knowing the Dissolution of the marriage and my present status in order to trouble my family.''
WP(Crl.).No.13 OF 2020 4
According to the averments in the affidavit, the alleged detenue is a free citizen and respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not detained her illegally.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE
ajt
WP(Crl.).No.13 OF 2020 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, PERUMKADAVILA PANCHAYATH DATED 20.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition invoking habeas corpus jurisdiction retains merit despite the alleged detenue's affidavit stating she is a free citizen and her marriage was dissolved.
Whether the notarization of the affidavit filed by the alleged detenue, executed by a notary outside the place of her residence, affects its admissibility for this purpose.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satheesh V. ThomasReferred¶34
Satheesh V. Thomas [2005(1) KLT 9]
JOSE N.U
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA
THANKACHEZHIYAN
KALA
JAYA
A.HARIPRASAD
N.ANIL KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
