Dr. Kailas Natarajan vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 2179 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                                   &

                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

   WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020


PETITIONER/S:

                DR. KAILAS NATARAJAN
                AGED 52 YEARS
                S/O.NATARAJAN, RESIDING AT KALPAKAM. FFRA-03A, S.N.
                COLLEGE JN., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR
                SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
                ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 012

      2         STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                NOORNAD POLICE STATION, NOORNAD, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT
                690 530

      3         MADHUSOODANAN V.
                MUDAKOOTTU ILLAM, MEKKUM MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE,
                MAVELIKARA THALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 530

      4         PRIYA
                W/O.MADHUSOODANAN V., MUNDAKOTTU ILLAM, MEKKUM MURI,
                THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA THALUK, ALAPPUZHA
                DISTRICT-690 530

      5         SREEKALA
                W/O.GOPINATHAN, MUNDAKOTTU ILLAM, MEKKUM MURI,
                THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA THALUK, ALAPPUZHA
                DISTRICT-690 530

      6         ADDL. R6. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
                KOLLAM CITY.

                IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT
                VIDE ORDER DATED 04/01/2021 IN WP(CRL).309/2020.
 WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

                                  -2-


                R1-2, R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
                R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.K.SURESH BABU (PUNALUR)
                R3-5 BY ADV. SMT.BHANU THILAK

OTHER PRESENT:

                SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

                                        -3-



                 K. Vinod Chandran & M.R. Anitha, JJ.
                 -------------------------------------
                       W.P (Crl) No.309 of 2020
                  ------------------------------------
              Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2020

                                   JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the

outset produced before us an order of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a Special Leave Petition, filed against our

interim order, which permits us to proceed with the

matter. We have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the party respondents 3 to 5 as also the

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1, 2 and 6.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued

that the petitioner is not seeking that the subject

should be allowed to live with the petitioner, but she

should be let free. It is argued that the subject is a

brilliant student and her mark sheets would show the

outstanding performance in examinations; which was

produced across the Bar. It cannot at all be said that

she is not capable of deciding for herself. It is argued WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

that she is a major, quiet competent to decide on her own

way of life as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009

(16) SCC 360 Girish vs. Radhamony and 2018 (16) SCC 368

Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents

however submits that there is no illegal detention and

the respondents are trying to provide psychiatric help to

their daughter. The counter-affidavit filed admits that

the daughter of the respondents 3 & 4, the subject of

this writ petition, was a brilliant student who suffered

a bout of depression for which the parents had consulted

the petitioner. The petitioner in the guise of counseling

and therapy insisted on solitary sessions with the

subject after which the subject developed an obsessive

attachment to the petitioner. The parents believe that

her obsessive thoughts are not normal and that she

require treatment.

4. In the interim order dated 04.01.2021 we have

detailed the circumstances under which we refused to

remove the subject from the custody of her parents though

she insisted that she wanted to go with the petitioner. WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

Today we specifically asked the learned counsel as to

whether there is anything to prove the proclaimed status

of the subject as the 'sishya' of the petitioner and the

petitioner's credentials to declare himself to be a

spiritual teacher/guru. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not offer us anything other than the

assertions made in the writ petition.

5. We had, in our earlier order specifically

called for a report from the sixth respondent - the

District Police Chief as to the antecedents of the

petitioner, especially since there were serious

apprehensions raised by the parents of the subject. The

learned Senior Government Pleader has placed on record a

report filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who

conducted the enquiry as authorized by the District

Police Chief. It is stated that the petitioner's parents

were Government employees belonging to a well settled

family with good financial background and he was married

in 2001, to a woman coming from similar circumstances.

The petitioner is said to have completed MBBS from

Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and after marriage WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

proceeded to U.K for Post Graduation in Psychiatry. After

returning from U.K, initially he pursued the medical

profession, but later proclaimed himself to be a Vedic

Yogacharya/Instructor. Still later the 1st floor of his

family house is said to have been converted to an Ashram,

in the ground floor of which building his aged mother is

still residing. The petitioners father is no more.

6. It is further reported that for the last few

years the petitioner is living in a rented house at

Mundakkal along with his wife and children and according

to the petitioner's own statement he gives minimum

attention to his wife and children. The wife and children

sustain on their own means and his two girl children aged

17 and 9 study at KIMS International School, Kottiyam.

The petitioner is said to have no communication with his

relatives. The mother of the petitioner, who gave a

statement to the police, which she refused to sign,

expressed suspicion over the activities of the petitioner

and disapproves of his actions. The mother who is living

alone in the family house, the upstairs of which the

petitioner uses as Ashram, is not convinced about the WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

so-called spiritual life led by the petitioner.

7. It is also reported that the petitioner was

arrayed as third accused in crime No.1950/2013

registered, under the various provisions of the IPC,

Kerala Police Act and Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 at East Police Station on the

strength of the statement of a 14 year old girl. It was

alleged that the petitioner while working as a

Psychiatric Consultant misbehaved with the victim and

sexually abused her at his residence; where she was

brought for psychiatric consultancy. However during

investigation she retracted from the allegation and

since there was no factual evidence other than her

statement, the petitioner was removed from the list of

accused.

8. In the interaction with the petitioner, he is

said to have stated that there are pending disputes and

legal proceedings with his mother; the details of which

were not divulged. The petitioner is also stated to have

not cooperated for a direct and detailed inquiry and was

unwilling to disclose his personal and professional WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

details. The petitioner claimed to be getting fees and

gifts from his followers and he had no other regular

means of income. On local inquiry it is reported that

there is no information of the petitioner having any

followers. It is reported that the petitioner is not

leading a socially acceptable life and has difficulty in

explaining the means and goals of his spirituality.

9. As to the contentions raised in the writ

petition the petitioner asserts that he has a live-in

relationship with the subject for the last 2 ½ years as

spiritual partners. However there is no allegation that

the parents had illegally removed the subject from the

custody of the petitioner. The petitioner also admits

that he is married with two children. But goes on to say

that they are under the care and shelter of the

petitioner, living separately. We recall our earlier

interaction with the subject, wherein she categorically

denied that she was married and asserted the relationship

with the petitioner to be divine. We offered her

assistance for counseling and tried to persuade her to at

least, at our behest, to interact with a Psychiatrist or WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

Psychoanalyst for us to get an expert opinion; which she

refused point blank. We attempted such a course of

action since the subject, on our assessment was incapable

of taking a decision for herself and the parents too had

raised serious concerns of her obsessive behaviour; which

we too witnessed during our interaction. We do not find

any good ground to detract from our earlier opinion

recorded in our order dated 04.1.2021. We also recorded

that there was no visible evidence of any physical

violence perpetrated on the subject and her allegations

were very vague.

10. Before we look at the law declared in the

decisions cited at the Bar, we briefly recount the facts

in the individual cases. In Girish a mother filed a

habeas corpus petition before the High Court alleging

that her minor daughter was kidnapped. The detenue was

produced before Court who asserted that she was a major

and that she was married to the respondent. The High

Court directed registration of a case for offences

punishable under the Penal Code against the respondent.

It was held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

pass such an order. When the alleged detenue appears in

Court and states that she had left her parental home on

her own free will, then, there could be no further orders

passed in the writ petition filed under Article 226, was

the dictum.

11. Shafin Jahan had more complex facts in which

the missing girl had first left her parental home

expressing a desire to convert and later married a person

from the faith to which she converted. The father was

the petitioner before the High Court who moved twice for

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The first of such

writ petitions was dismissed finding that the daughter of

the petitioner is not under any illegal confinement and

is residing in an institution on her own wish and will,

having embraced a different faith. The father and other

family members were allowed to visit her at the above

institution subject to the institutional regulations.

Then a further writ petition was filed alleging that his

daughter was likely to be transported out of the country.

The daughter of the petitioner appeared and refuted the

contention of the father and on her free will was allowed WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

to go along with the 7th respondent, her friend. Later,

she appeared before the High Court and made a statement

that she had entered into a marriage with Shafin Jahan.

The High Court invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction

annulled the marriage and directed the subject to be

escorted to her parental residence.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the

judgment of the High Court allowing the major girl to

join her husband. Reversing the judgment of the High

Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court held so:

28. In the instant case, the High Court, as is noticeable from the impugned verdict, has been erroneously guided by some kind of social phenomenon that was frescoed before it. The writ court has taken exception to the marriage of Respondent 9 herein with the appellant. It felt perturbed. As we see, there was nothing to be taken exception to. Initially, Hadiya had declined to go with her father and expressed her desire to stay with Respondent 7 before the High Court and in the first writ it had so directed. The adamantine attitude of the father, possibly impelled by obsessive parental love, compelled him to knock at the doors of the High Court in another habeas corpus petition whereupon the High Court directed the production of Hadiya who appeared on the given date along with the appellant herein whom the High Court calls a stranger. But Hadiya would insist that she had entered into marriage with him. True it is, she had gone with Respondent 7 before the High Court but that does not mean and can never mean that she, as a major, could not enter into a marital relationship. But, the High Court unwarrantably took exception to the same forgetting that parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married.

And, that is where the error has crept in. The High Court should have, after an interaction as regards her choice, WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

directed that she was free to go where she wished to.

29. The High Court further erred by reflecting upon the social radicalisation and certain other aspects. In a writ of habeas corpus, especially in the instant case, it was absolutely unnecessary. If there was any criminality in any sphere, it is for the law-enforcing agency to do the needful but as long as the detenue has not been booked under law to justify the detention which is under challenge, the obligation of the Court is to exercise the celebrated writ that breathes life into our constitutional guarantee of freedom. The approach of the High Court on the said score is wholly fallacious.

13. In the present case we find the facts to be

quite different. The alleged detenue is residing in her

parental home and is aged 21 years, definitely a major.

The petitioner who is 52 years old allege illegal

detention of the subject by her own parents on the ground

that he has a live-in relationship with her for the last

two and half years. It is pertinent that though the

assertion is of a live-in relationship there is no

contention that the subject ever lived with him and was

illegally taken away by her parents. The petitioner has

moved the Court as the live-in spiritual partner of the

subject and does not speak of any marriage between them.

The petitioner also is married and has two children in

the wedlock.

14. The petitioner's association with the

subject also commenced with the Psychiatric consultation WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

the parents initiated; which has now taken a very

different turn. As we noticed in the interim order dated

04.01.2021, on interaction, we did not find the subject

to be capable of taking a decision for herself. We have

also recorded the submission made by the parents before

us that their daughter had shown signs of obsession

coupled with hysteria. We sought her permission to summon

a Psychiatrist or a Psycho-analyst to talk to her so as

to better assess her mental state. The subject adamantly

refused to talk to anybody. It was in these

circumstances that we found no reason to remove the 21

year old from the custody of the parents who, we thought

were best equipped to deal with her present situation.

15. In this context we refer to the consideration

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan to the

scope and ambit of the parens patriae jurisdiction. We

extract here under paragraphs 31, 39 and 45 .

31. Another aspect which calls for invalidating the order of the High Court is the situation in which it has invoked the parens patriae doctrine. Parens patriae in Latin means "parent of the nation". In law, it refers to the power of the State to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. "The parens patriae jurisdiction is sometimes spoken of as 'supervisory'"15.

xxx xxx xxx WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

39. Constitutional courts in this country exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in matters of child custody treating the welfare of the child as the paramount concern. There are situations when the court can invoke the parens patriae principle and the same is required to be invoked only in exceptional situations. We may like to give some examples. For example, where a person is mentally ill and is produced before the court in a writ of habeas corpus, the court may invoke the aforesaid doctrine. On certain other occasions, when a girl who is not a major has eloped with a person and she is produced at the behest of habeas corpus filed by her parents and she expresses fear of life in the custody of her parents, the court may exercise the jurisdiction to send her to an appropriate home meant to give shelter to women where her interest can be best taken care of till she becomes a major.

xxx xxx xxx

45. Thus, the constitutional courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. But the said exercise of power is not without limitation. The courts cannot in every and any case invoke the parens patriae doctrine. The said doctrine has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that though

the Constitutional Courts normally exercise parens

patriae jurisdiction in matters of child custody there

are other exceptional situations where it can be invoked.

A person mentally ill, if produced before Court and cases

where minor girls elope and on production, expresses fear

to go with their parents, are treated as exceptional

situations. In the present case, the petitioner has WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

sought for releasing the daughter of respondents 3 and 4

from their custody. We directed the subject to be

produced before us and we interacted with her. On finding

her to be incapable of taking a decision for herself we

directed her to be retained with her parents at her

parental home. We in fact found nothing to remove the

subject from the custody of her parents; in her present

mental state, which they are the best persons to address.

We are not satisfied that the parents are in any manner

incapable of or dis-entitled from retaining custody of

their daughter; who though a major was showing signs of

mental disturbance. The parents were also exploring ways

and means to enable treatment for their daughter. We once

again extract from Shafin Jahan to observe that from our

interaction with the subject the suggestion was of a

vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance, which

persuaded us to refuse invocation of the extra ordinary

remedy under Article 226 since the subject was in the

safe custody of her parents.

51. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, Mr Divan emphasised on the concept that when the major is a vulnerable adult, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can exercise the parens patriae doctrine which has been exercised in this case. The WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

aforesaid judgments, in our considered opinion, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. We say so without any hesitation as we have interacted with Respondent 9 and there is nothing to suggest that she suffers from any kind of mental incapacity or vulnerability. She was absolutely categorical in her submissions and unequivocal in the expression of her choice.

(Underlined for emphasis)

17. We were also of the opinion that the

antecedents of the petitioner are not such as to trust

him with the custody of a young girl of 21 on mere

statement of she being tutored; by the petitioner, in

spirituality. This is especially so when the parents of

the subject had initially approached the petitioner with

their daughter for psychiatric consultation and their

trust in him as a Doctor and therapist was breached to

the extent of the petitioner declaring his patient to be

a live-in partner; when he himself was married with two

children. We also did not adopt the step of putting her

in a safe home, since she refused vehemently and her

mental state was also not conducive to that. We dismiss

the writ petition leaving the parties to suffer their

respective costs. We direct that the Registry shall not

issue certified copy of the report of the Police, unless WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

on orders of this Court, since it contains the name of

the victim in a POCSO case.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE Shg/jma WP(Crl.).No.309 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE DETINUE REGARDING THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 3.10.2020

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE CASE STATUS

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2020

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAILS FROM MS LEKSHMI DATED 29.11.2020

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAILS FROM MS LEKSHMI 2.12.2020

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R3 A A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID OP NO 880/2020 FILED ON 22.09.2020 IN THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVALIKKARA

EXHIBIT R3 B A TRUE COPY OF THE SID TEMPORARY INUCTION APPLICATION VIDE IA 1/2020 IN OP 880/2020 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT R3 C A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IN IA 1/2020 IN OP 880/2020 DATD 22.09.2020