Kannan S vs The District Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 10871 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 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                         WP(Crl.).No.88 OF 2021


PETITIONER/S:

                KANNAN S.,
                AGED 24 YEARS
                S/O. SURESH KUMAR, PUNTHALAVEEDU HOUSE, KOLAMURI,
                PANMANA VILLAGE, CHAVARA POST, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK
                KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 583.

                BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
                KOLLAM CITY, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
                KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM, KERALA 691 001

      2         THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                ERAVIPURAM, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM,
                KOLLAM 691 011

      3         THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                KILIKOLLOOR, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, MANGADU
                ROAD, KOLLAM 691 019

      4         SHAHARUDHEEN,
                BAITHUL MUHAMMED, ERUPPERA, NEAR AMRITHA VIDYALAYAM,
                TKM ENGINEERING COLLEGE POST, PEROOR, KOLLAM 691 005

                R1-3 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
                R4 BY ADV. SRI.SHAHIM BIN AZIZ

OTHER PRESENT:

                SRI.K.B. RAMANAND (SR.GP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(Crl.).No.88 OF 2021             2



                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of March 2021

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner was before this Court alleging that the daughter

of the 4th respondent is in the illegal custody of the 4 th respondent. We

directed the girl to be produced before this Court. We talked with her.

She told us her desire to go with the petitioner. We also interacted

with the 4th respondent, who was present in the Court and the mother

of the petitioner. The 4th respondent raised his objection with respect

to the affair between the petitioner and his daughter. The petitioner's

mother was ready to accept the 4 th respondent's daughter as her

daughter-in-law.

In such circumstances, we find no way to prohibit the daughter

of the 4th respondent from going according to her wish, especially she

is a major. We hence allow the writ petition permitting the detenue to

go along with the petitioner.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                               M.R.ANITHA

SHG                                               JUDGE



                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           A COMPAT DISK (CD) CONTAINING THE VIDEO

FOOTAGE OF DETENUE PLEADING FOR HELP