IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019
PETITIONER:
ANJU PAPPACHAN,
AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O.PAPPACHAN.S.,
CHARUVILA VEEDU,
OZHUKUPARACKAL P.O.,
MAKKULAM, PERUNGALLOOR, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE,
AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA P.O.,
PIN – 691 506.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 534.
4 SOBY JOHN,
D/O.THANKACHEN K.M.,
NO.177, BREEZE GARDEN,
ATHIPALAYAM, OPPOSITE RANGANATHAN ENGG COLLEGE,
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN – 641 110.
R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
R4 BY ADV.SRI.NOBEL RAJU
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 2 :
JUDGMENT
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
The mother of a minor girl, allegedly aged 5 years,
named Charis Sony, is the petitioner herein, seeking a writ of
Habeas Corpus for directing production of the minor child and
to hand over custody to her, based on an allegation that the
minor child is under illegal detention of the 4 th respondent,
who is the sister of the father of the child.
2. Brief averments are that, the marriage between the
petitioner and Sri.Sony John, who is the brother of the 4 th
respondent, was solemnized on 28.6.2012 and the above
said minor child was born out of their wedlock, on 2.4.2013.
Marital life between the petitioner and her husband was not
cordial. They got separated on 21.7.2018, when the
petitioner along with the child started residence at her
parental home. According to the petitioner, the child was
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 3 :
admitted in U.K.G. at a school at Anchal, with effect from
11.9.2018. It is admitted that the petitioner had instituted
various litigations against her husband before the Family
Court, Kottarakkara, for getting maintenance for herself and
the child, seeking dissolution of the marriage and for return of
gold ornaments, as M.C.No.405/2018, O.P.
(Divorce)No.634/2018 and O.P.No.635/2018, respectively. It
is stated that the petitioner is an experienced Fashion
Designer and she went to Abu Dhabi in search of job on
29.11.2018, after entrusting the minor child with the parents
of the petitioner. Allegation is that, on 21.12.2018 at about
5.00 p.m., the 4th respondent along with two other persons
trespassed into the parental home of the petitioner and
kidnapped the minor child in a car. It is stated that, based on
a complaint made by the parents of the petitioner, the 4 th
respondent and others along with the child was taken into
custody by the police. But the police had handed over
custody of the child to the 4 th respondent, without registering
any case. Knowing about this, the petitioner came back on
29.12.2018 and approached the police authorities and
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 4 :
insisted for registering a case. Accordingly, the 3 rd
respondent had registered Ext.P3 case for offences
punishable under Sections 363 and 34 of the I.P.C. on
7.1.2019. Alleging that the 4 th respondent is detaining the
minor child illegally since 21.12.2018, the above writ petition
is filed.
3. When the above writ petition came up for
consideration, this court issued notice to the 4 th respondent
through special messenger. Report of the messenger is to
the effect that, when he made attempts to serve notice on the
4th respondent in the flat where she is residing, he was
threatened and driven away by the owner of the flat.
Therefore the messenger could not effect service of notice on
the 4th respondent.
4. When the case was taken up for consideration on
today, the 4th respondent appeared in person. She is also
represented through a lawyer. The father of the minor child,
who is the husband of the petitioner, is also personally
present along with the child. Counsel appearing for the 4 th
respondent submitted that, the child is in the custody of its
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 5 :
father at Coimbatore and the child is admitted to a school
therein. According to the 4th respondent, the child was taken
custody from the maternal grand parents, at a time when the
petitioner had left to Bangalore by leaving the child in the
custody of the grand parents. It is submitted on behalf of the
4th respondent that the child was handed over custody to its
father by the maternal grand parents. It is further submitted
that, the father of the child had already instituted a case
before the Family Court at Coimbatore, seeking declaration of
guardianship and custody of the child, as GW
O.P.No.45/2019.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of respondents 1 to 3 submitted on instructions from the 3 rd
respondent that, based on a statement given by the father of
the petitioner a case was registered as Crime No.28/2019
under Sections 363 and 34 of I.P.C. with respect to the
alleged kidnapping of the child on 21.12.2018 by the 4 th
respondent and her husband. It is mentioned that, the
investigation of the said case is under progress. Enquiry
conducted so far had revealed that, the child was taken
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 6 :
custody from the maternal grand parents by the 4 th
respondent along with the father of the child. It is also
revealed that the child is now in the custody of its father at
Coimbatore, in the address of the 4 th respondent shown in the
above writ petition.
6. We directed the 4th respondent and the father of
the child to hand over custody of the child to the petitioner for
sometime, from the morning till the afternoon. Thereafter the
child was returned custody to the father Sri.Sony John, as
directed by this court.
7. From the circumstances as mentioned above, we
are convinced that the minor child is in the custody of its
father and the allegation that the 4 th respondent is keeping
custody of the child illegally, is not true and correct. Question
to be considered is whether there exists any exceptional
circumstances for this court to invoke the Parens patriae
jurisdiction, to direct the father of the child to hand over
custody to the petitioner/mother. Case of the petitioner is that
the child was forcibly taken custody from the maternal grand
parents by the 4th respondent. Contention of the 4th
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 7 :
respondent that the child was given custody to its father by
the maternal grand parents. The version put forth by the 3 rd
respondent is also supporting this. Evidently there exists
matrimonial disputes between the parents of the child, with
respect to which litigations are pending before the Family
Court at Kottarakkara. Now it is submitted by the 4 th
respondent that there is a case instituted by the father of the
child under the Guardians and Wards Act, before the Family
Court at Coimbatore.
8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, in
order to decide the question as to who among the parents is
the best suitable person to be entrusted with custody of the
minor, considering the welfare and interest of the child, an
elaborate adjudication is required. Such an adjudication can
only be undertaken by an appropriate court having jurisdiction
under the Guardians and Wards Act. It will not be
appropriate on the part of this court to issue any direction in
this regard without a proper adjudication, especially when we
could not find that the child is under illegal custody.
Admittedly the child was in custody of the petitioner till
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 8 :
21.12.2018. If the petitioner has got a case that the child was
taken forcible custody, either by the 4 th respondent or by the
father of the child, from the petitioner’s parents, from their
house in Kollam District, it is left open to the petitioner to
approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction seeking
permanent custody of the child. It will also be left open to the
petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief in such a petition if
filed, for getting interim custody of the child during pendency
of such original petition. We think it appropriate to relegate
the matter to be decided by the Family Court having
jurisdiction.
9. Therefore, the above writ petition is hereby
dismissed by relegating the petitioner to seek appropriate
relief before the Family Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
The child is permitted to be in the custody of its father,
Sri.Sony John, until appropriate order is passed by any
Family Court having jurisdiction in the matter. It is made clear
that if any interim application with respect to custody is filed
before the Family Court having jurisdiction, that court shall
pass appropriate orders taking note of the prime
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 9 :
consideration, which is the welfare and interest of the child,
without any further delay.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR,
JUDGE
Bb
WP(Crl.).No. 29 of 2019 : 10 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
CHARIS SONY, DAUGHTER OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE PRINCIPAL, ST.GEORGE CENTRAL
SCHOOL, ANCHAL.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
28/2019 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE
STATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR
DATED 31.12.2018.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
NIL
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
Bb