IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(Crl.).No.399 OF 2019
CHAITHANYA BOSE,AGED 30 YEARS,
SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM PIN-682 035.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POLICE,
MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, PIN-682 314.
4 VINEETH KUMAR V.,AGED 34 YEARS,
5 L.SARALABHAI,AGED 56 YEARS,
R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
R4-R5 BY ADV. SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. Harilal, J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of the
alleged detenue, the child, born to the petitioner
and the 4th respondent. According to the
petitioner, the detenue being a small child has
been kept away from her and the right to care
and protection of the mother of the detenue thus
have been curtailed by the 4 th and 5th
respondents. According to the petitioner, the act
of the 4th respondent would amount to illegal
detention of the child and therefore she sought
for a direction to produce the detenue before this
Court and hand over the custody to her so as to
take proper care of the child.
2. The 5th respondent entered appearance
through counsel and submits that the 4th
respondent has already filed O.P.(GW) No.
1102/2019 before the Family Court,
Pathanamthitta seeking permanent custody of the
child, under the provisions of Guardians and
SectionWards Act and the child is not under the unlawful
detention of the 4th and 5th respondents, as
alleged in the writ petition.
3. In view of the submissions at the bar, we
find that the matter in dispute involved in this
writ petition is a dispute in respect of the custody
of the child, which arose out of the marital
dispute between the petitioner and the 4 th
respondent and it cannot be an illegal detention,
as alleged in the writ petition. Considering the
fact that the 4th respondent has already
approached the family court by filing OP(GW)
No. 1102/2019, the issue in respect of the
custody of the child is relegated to the family
court concerned. The petitioner is directed to
seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law
in OP(GW) No.1102/2019. There is no
circumstance warranting issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. Hence, this writ petition would
stand closed. If the petitioner prefers application
to advance the hearing of OP(GW)
No.1102/2019, seeking interim custody of the
child, the family court shall advance the case and
consider the interim custody of the child, at the
earliest, without any delay.
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE DATED 06/10/19.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT TO 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 21/10/2019
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 08/11/2019.