Anupriya vs The Superintendent Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 12893 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                              &
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
 FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1943
                 WP(CRL.) NO. 148 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

          ANUPRIYA
          AGED 30 YEARS
          D/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN, KUNNIL HOUSE, SHOLAYUR
          AMSOM DESOM, MANNARAKKAD TALUK, PIN 678 581
          BY ADVS.
          M.SANJEEV
          MERSEENA VINCENT

RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DP
          PALAKKAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD, PIN
          CODE 678 014
    2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN
          678 581
    3     RATHEESHKUMAR,
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O. DORAISWAMY, KALATHIPARAMBIL , OMMALA
          JELLIPPARA, KALLAMALA VILLAGE, MANNARAKKAD
          TALUK, PALAKKAD PIN 678 581
          BY ADV: M.SANJEEV


          SMT.C.S SHEEJA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl) No.148 of 2021

                                       2




              P.B.SURESH KUMAR & K.HARIPAL, JJ.
               -----------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(Crl) No.148 of 2021
               -----------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 11th day of June, 2021.


                             JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

Petitioner is the former wife of the third respondent.

Petitioner divorced the third respondent on 07.01.2019. A male child

born to the parties who is aged 6 years now, has been residing with

the petitioner ever since 16.06.2018, in terms of Ext.P1 agreement.

As per Ext.P1 agreement, the third respondent is permitted to take

the child to his residence on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the petitioner

permitted the third respondent to take the child to his residence on

11.04.2021 to celebrate Vishu on a request made by him, he did not

return the child. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the various

efforts taken by the petitioner thereafter to contact the third

respondent and to pursue him to return the child did not evoke any W.P.(Crl) No.148 of 2021

response. It is further alleged by the petitioner that though the

petitioner preferred complaints to respondents 1 and 2, action is not

being taken by them. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to

the respondents to produce the child before this court alleging that

the custody of the child by the third respondent is unlawful.

2. In terms of the interim order passed by this court

on 28.05.2021, respondents 1 and 2 were directed to produce the

child before this court. 3.

3. Pursuant to the said interim order, the child is

produced before us today by the second respondent through video

conferencing. The petitioner and the third respondent also appeared

before us through video conferencing.

4. We have interacted with the third respondent. He

submitted that the custody of the child has already been handed

over to the petitioner. The third respondent did not dispute the fact

that the child should have been returned by him to the petitioner

immediately after the Vishu. The excuse put forward by the third

respondent for not returning the child to the petitioner is that he

could not do so on account of the restrictions due to the pandemic

Covid-19.

W.P.(Crl) No.148 of 2021

5. The petitioner acknowledged the fact that the

custody of the child has been handed over to her by the third

respondent.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, especially the relationship between the parties, we are of

the view that it is unnecessary to go into the justifiability of the

conduct of the third respondent in not returning the child to the

petitioner, and the matter can be closed recording the submissions

made by the parties.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is closed recording

the submissions made by the petitioner as also the third respondent.

It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the

third respondent from initiating proceedings in accordance with law

concerning the custody of the child, if he has any subsisting

grievance.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL, JUDGE.

Mn W.P.(Crl) No.148 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 148/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO. D477312 DATED 16-05-2018 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAAR CARD Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SHO, SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION DATED 14-4-2021 Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, AGALI, DATED 22-04-2021 Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, PALAKKAD DATED 30-04-2021 Exhibit P6 COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, AGALI DATED 14-05-2021