Kerala High Court
Georgekutty , S/O.Mathai Aged 49 … vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 December, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 433 of 2010(S)
1. GEORGEKUTTY , S/O.MATHAI AGED 49 YEARS … Petitioner
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE… Respondent
2. JACOB, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAVILAVEEDU
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT
This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier order dated 11/11/10 passed by us.
2. The petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue, a young married woman, aged above 25 years with two minor children aged 4 = and 2 = years old. She was living with her husband. She was found to be missing from 16/10/10. The petitioner, in these circumstances, came to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus arraying the local Sub Inspector of Police and the 2nd respondent as parties. The 2nd respondent is the husband of the alleged detenue i.e., the son-in- law of the petitioner.
3. The alleged detenue was brought to Court on 11/11/10. We attempted to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement. Accordingly, the spouses went together from Court agreeing to various stipulations which have been narrated in detail in the order dated 11/11/10. The petitioner had requested and we had agreed that the arrangement stipulated as per the order dated 11/11/10 must be monitored by us for some period of time. It is accordingly that the matter was posted to this date to enable us to satisfy ourselves that the arrangement is working properly.
4. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner is not present. He is represented by a counsel. The 2nd respondent is represented by a counsel. His brother-in-law Mr.K.M. Joy has also come to Court along with him. The alleged detenue, Jiji Jacob, is also present.
5. It is submitted by the alleged detenue that harmony has not returned. She has no complaints against the 2nd respondent. But she does not now want to go with the 2nd respondent. She is willing to leave her minor children aged 4 = and 2 = years with the 2nd respondent, her husband and their father. She is also willing to withdraw all pending proceedings against the 2nd respondent including the prosecution under Sec.498A IPC. The alleged detenue stated before us that she wants to leave this Court along with one Biju who has come to Court.
6. In our anxiety to ensure that the alleged detenue is speaking voluntarily and genuinely, we sought the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not come to Court today. The alleged detenue states before us that she had told her father, the petitioner, also about her intentions. He has not, in these circumstances, chosen to come to Court. His attempts to persuade the alleged detenue to lead a happy life with the 2nd respondent has also failed. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders may be passed in this writ petition.
7. The 2nd respondent submits that inasmuch as the alleged detenue does not want to come with him and wants to go along with the said Biju, he does not want to stand against the wishes of the alleged detenue, his wife. He submits that he has accepted the arrangement of parties seeking divorce without any acrimony and the children being entrusted to his custody and guardianship. The alleged detenue reiterates that she has decided to separate from the 2nd respondent, to leave both the children to the custody and guardianship of the 2nd respondent;to get a legal divorce from the 2nd respondent and to go with said Biju, a friend of hers.
8. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. This writ petition only deserves to be dismissed after recording the above events which have transpired before this Court today.
9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
P.S. to Judge
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 ORDER
The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his daughter Jiji Jacob – a young woman aged about 25 years, and two minor children aged 4 = and 2 = years. She was residing along with her husband – the 2nd respondent. But, according to the petitioner, she was found missing from 16/10/10 and her whereabouts were not known. The petitioner employed abroad had, in these circumstances, come to India. As he was unable to trace his daughter, he had come to this Court with this petition on 3/11/10.
2. This petition was admitted on 4/11/10. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Accordingly, the case has been posted to this date.
3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present.
He is represented by his counsel. The 2nd respondent is present. He is also represented by a counsel. Along with the 2nd respondent, his brother-in-law Mr.K.M. Joy, has also come to Court. The alleged detenue is also present.
4. When the matter was called in court, we sensed the possibility of a harmonious settlement of the disputes between the parties. We accordingly requested the counsel to make efforts to settle the disputes between the parties.
5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her father – the petitioner. Subsequently, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of the 2nd respondent. The brother-in- law of the 2nd respondent Mr.K.M. Joy was also present. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnikode – the 1st respondent, was also present.
6. The alleged detenue states before us that she had gone back to her house unable to stand the torture at the hands of the 2nd respondent. She is not really interested in any action being taken against the 2nd respondent; but she laments that she has been subjected to torture at her matrimonial home. She candidly
admits that the 2nd respondent does look after her and her children; but when he is drunk, he allegedly assaults and physically belabours her. It is, in these circumstances, that she was forced to leave her house. If she is assured that there shall be no physical harassment at the hands of the 2nd respondent under the influence of liquor, she is willing to resume cohabitation with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner – the father of the alleged detenue, states that he also wants his daughter and her infant children to be with the husband/father. He also only prays that it may be ensured that the alleged detenue is not subjected to any physical harassment.
7. In our interaction with the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent accepts unconditionally that he shall not consume liquor; nor shall he cause any physical harassment to his wife – the alleged detenue. Mr.K.M. Joy – the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent, states that he shall undertake, on behalf of the members of the family of the 2nd respondent, that the 2nd respondent shall not hereafter subject the alleged detenue to any sort of physical harassment. We are informed that the father and mother of the 2nd respondent are also residing along with the 2nd respondent, the alleged detenue, and their children.
8. The 2nd respondent and his brother-in-law Mr.K.M. Joy
have filed before this Court affidavits of undertaking to ensure that the 2nd respondent shall not, in any way, assault or cause physical harassment to the alleged detenue. He shall not consume liquor, it is further undertaken. It is further agreed that the alleged detenue shall be permitted to go to her house once in every month by the 2nd respondent.
9. We have interacted with the 1st respondent – Sub Inspector of Police. He undertakes that he shall closely monitor and ensure that there is no physical harassment or assault by the 2nd respondent against the alleged detenue.
10. We are satisfied as requested by the petitioner that this arrangement must be monitored by us for some period of time. We shall hence post this matter to a later date to satisfy ourselves that the arrangement is working properly.
11. In the result:
(a) We direct that the case be called again on 22/12/10. (b) We accept the submission and written undertaking of the 2nd respondent and his brother-in-law that the 2nd respondent shall not, and the brother-in-law Mr.K.M. Joy shall ensure that there is no, assault or physical harassment against the alleged detenue by the 2nd respondent. (c) We accept the undertaking of the 1st respondent that he shall closely monitor and supervise and ensure that there is no physical assault or harassment against the alleged detenue by the 2nd respondent.
12. Call this petition again on 22/12/10. Both parties shall appear on that date i.e., 22/12/10.
13. Hand over copies of this order to both sides. R. BASANT
K. SURENDRA MOHAN