Kerala High Court
Sujith K. S.Aged 35 Years vs By Advs on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(Crl.).No.93 OF 2021
PETITIONER
SUJITH K. S.AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. K. V. SASI, KADUVATHARAYIL, KOTTAMONPARA P.
O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 667.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.K.SUNIL
SMT.K.SEENA
RESPONDENTS
1 THE DISTRICT CHIEF OF POLICE
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689657.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689692.
3 DAVID @ ADARSH
AL SALAM INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL, P. B . NO.11023,
BNIED AL GAR, BLOCK 1, STREET SHERIF AL RADI,
DASMA, KUWAIT, ZIP CODE - 55151.
4 RAMACHANDRA PRASAD
MALATHARAYIL HOUSE, SEETHATHODU P. O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689667.
5 BABITHA PRASAD
W/O. RAMACHANDRA PRASAD, MALATHARAYIL HOUSE,
SEETHATHODU P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689667.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl).93 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated : 9th April, 2021
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
1. The petitioner is concerned with the welfare of his
wife who is said to be detained by the 3 rd respondent.
The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were colleagues
in a Hospital in Kuwait. When there were family
discords, the 3rd respondent intervened, won the
confidence of the petitioner's wife and eventually
entered into a relationship with her. He is also said
to have video-graphed the physical relationship for
the purpose of black mailing the petitioner's wife
who is said to have been transported to India and
detained somewhere at the native place of the 3rd
respondent.
2. In fact even in the writ petition it is stated that
the petitioner had been in touch with the alleged
detenue only till September 2019. It is further
stated that when they lost contact, the petitioner's
mother filed a complaint as per Ext.P2 on 13.2.2020.
The wife of the petitioner is said to have returned
WP(Crl).93 of 2021
to India in the first week of March, 2021 after which
she has no contact with the petitioner. In the
petition the address of the 3rd respondent shown is
that in Kuwait. Despite the allegation that they were
close friends, the petitioner feigns ignorance about
the native place of the 3rd respondent, while at the
same time asserting that his wife is confined in the
native place of the 3rd respondent.
3. Only considering the relationship, by interim order
dated 7.4.2021, we directed the 2nd respondent to get
a statement of the alleged detenue, through a Woman
Police Officer without the presence of the alleged
detenue's parents or family members. Today the
statement has been produced by the 2nd respondent as
recorded by a Woman Civil Police Officer and signed
by the alleged detenue.
4. A detailed statement recorded from the alleged
detenue is placed before us. There are allegation of
both physical and mental harassment by the petitioner
as also demands of dowry made by him. In the year
2018, by reason of very grievous physical torture
unleashed on her by the petitioner, her parents had
WP(Crl).93 of 2021
come to her marital home to take her back. However,
in the hope of rapprochement she had continued in her
marital home. The petitioner was unemployed and was
living on the pocket money given to his wife by her
parents. These circumstances forced the wife of the
petitioner to leave for Kuwait after procuring a job
there. She is also said to have filed petition for
divorce and for return of gold ornaments before the
Family Court Pathanamthitta. She also admits to have
developed a relationship with one of her colleagues
with whom she had returned to India. She
categorically submits that she is living on her own
will and is not threatened or illegally detained in
any manner.
5. We do not find any reason to entertain the Writ
Petition. Finding statement about two proceedings
having been initiated by the alleged detenue we
called for a report from the Family Court,
Pathanamthitta and the Registrar (District Judiciary)
has placed before us the following:
6. The alleged detenue has filed O.P.(HMA)39/2020
for divorce before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta
WP(Crl).93 of 2021
where notice has been issued, which has been returned
with endorsement 'unclaimed'. There is also another
Original Petition filed numbered as O.P.32/2020,
wherein, respondents 2 & 3 are the parents of the
petitioner. The said Original Petition is for return
of money and gold ornaments entrusted with the
petitioner and his family at the time of marriage.
Therein, the notice is said to have been returned
with the endorsement 'addressee left'.
7. The learned counsel points out that the said
proceeding has been referred to in the writ petition
at paragraph No.2 and that the petitioner was not in
the State for some time. We find this petition a
clear abuse of process of Court and the writ petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA, Judge
Mrcs/8.4.
WP(Crl).93 of 2021
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER'S MARRIAGE
WITH THE DETENUE DATED 3.4.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
13.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S
MOTHER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P2 DATED
13.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2021.
