Dismissed

Sasidharan Pillai B., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2021WP(Crl.)/147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition regarding the custody of a 22-year-old daughter, the Court found she intended to marry the 5th respondent and was not illegally detained. The petitioner agreed to surrender relevant certificates, leading to the dismissal of the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to hand over original certificates to the SHO and the SHO was directed to hand them to the daughter after obtaining a receipt.

Sasidharan Pillai B., Vs the State of Kerala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(CRL.) NO. 147 OF 2021

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

0 SASIDHARAN PILLAI B.,

¶6

AGED 56 YEARS S/O. BHARGAVAN PILLAI, SEA LAND, GOVINDAMUTTOM P.O, KAYAMKULAM, PUTHUPPALLY (PART), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 527

¶7

BY ADVS.ARUN SAMUEL JITHIN BABU A

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,

¶12

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, CCSB ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 012

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, PIN 690 502

¶14

4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM-THIRUVALLA HIGHWAY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 502

¶15

5 SAJADSHA

¶16

AGED 22 YEARS

¶17

S/O. SHAHUL KUTTY, KATTUSHERIL (VELUTHEDATHU PADEETTATHIL), KEERIKAD P.O, ALAPPIUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 690 508

¶18

BY ADV ARUN SAMUEL

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SR GP SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(Crl)No.147/2021

J U D G M E N T

Gopinath, J:

This writ petition has been filed by the father of one Ankita S., on the allegation that she is kept under illegal custody of one Sajadsha, the 5^th respondent. It is stated that the aforesaid Ankita was forcefully taken away by the 5^th respondent when she had gone to her college for an examination. In view of the averments in the writ petition, we had requested to the learned Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondents 1 to 4 to ensure the presence of the aforesaid Ankita in order to ascertain whether she was under the illegal custody of the 5^th respondent.

¶27

Today when the matter was taken up we interacted through video conferencing with the petitioner and his wife, parents of Ankita, the 5^th respondent as also with Ankita herself. Though the petitioner and his wife had interacted with their daughter Ankita she expressed her desire to live with the 5^th respondent. She also stated that she intends to marry the 5^th respondent and that they had already given notice of intended marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. She further states that the marriage could not be registered despite notice being given on account of the fact that original documents to prove her date of birth etc are in the custody of her parents.

¶28

W.P.(Crl)No.147/2021

¶29

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the aforesaid Ankita is a major. She is stated to be 22 years of age. She is quite firm in her conviction to marry the 5^th respondent and to live with him. She is therefore not under illegal custody as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner, the father of Ankita has undertaken before us that he does not intend to prevent the marriage of Ankita with the 5^th respondent by holding on to any certificate belonging to Ankita. He has also very fairly agreed before us that he will hand over the originals of certificates such as the SSLC Book etc to the SHO, Kayamkulam Police Station, Kayamkulam (the 4^th respondent herein) on 07-06-2021, before 11 a.m. This offer of the petitioner is recorded and the 4^th respondent is directed to receive the certificates handed over by the petitioner under receipt and hand over the same to the aforesaid Ankita after obtaining a receipt from her.

¶31

In the circumstances noticed above, a writ of Habeas Corpus will not issue. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶34

sd/-

¶35

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

W.P.(Crl)No.147/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶40

EXT.P1: COPY OF WHATSAPP CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DETENUE AND THE PETITIONER.

¶41

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S WIFE DATED 15/05/2021.

¶42

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS REGARDS THE PETITION FILED BY SMT. SREELATHA.

¶43

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF A NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 12.11.2020 CONCERNING THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶44

TRUE COPY

¶45

PA TO JUDGE.

Sasidharan Pillai B., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan Pillai B., v. the State of Kerala

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

Valsa.D.S Vs a.Shajahan IAS

Lemer Public School Vs Shaharban R.M.

K.P.Muhammed Asharaf Vs Chengalayi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath Committee

Syamraj Vs Jayakumar

Muhammed Muhasin Vs Ashokan Km

Surendran M Vs State of Kerala