Kerala High Court
Renjith B vs District Police Chief on 28 May, 2021
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(CRL.) NO. 145 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
RENJITH B., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. BALASUBRAMONIAN,
RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, AMBALLOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 315.
BY ADVS. M/S. P.SANJAY, A.PARVATHI MENON
BIJU MEENATTOOR, PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, OPP.
POWER HOUSE, ALWAYE, PIN-683 101.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PUTHENCRUZ SUB DIVISION, PUTHENCRUZ,
ERNAKULAM-682 308.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KARAVATTAKURIZ,
KANJIRAMATTOM, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682
314.
4 RAKESH,AGED 42 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, "PETZOTICA" PET SHOP, UDAYAMPEROOR,
OPPOSITE NATIONAL STEEL, RESIDING AT MLA ROAD,
NEAR AMEDA TAMPLE, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682
307.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.
===========================
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
===========================
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The prayer in the afore captioned Habeas Corpus Writ
proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as
follows:
"Issue Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to
produce Shwetha, minor children Shreyas, and Shresht, before this
Hon'ble Court, and set them at liberty."
2. Heard Smt.A.Parvathi Menon, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public
Prosecutor appearing for official respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of
the order proposed to be passed by us for the disposal of this petition,
it is ordered that notice to contesting respondent No.4 will stand
dispensed with.
3. The basic factual aspects and some of the subsequent
developments in this case have been delineated by this Court in the
order passed yesterday (27.5.2021) after hearing both sides, and
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
the same reads as follows:
"Sri.Saiji Jacob Palatty, the learned Public Prosecutor would
submit on the basis of instructions of the 3 rd respondent Station
House Officer that the 3 rd respondent has traced the alleged detenue
Smt.Swetha Renjith, aged 35 years, wife of the petitioner herein
(B.Renjith) in the residence of one of her close friends, who is a lady
and that statement of Smt.Swetha has been recorded by the police
officer concerned wherein she has clearly stated that it was on
account of extreme marital discord with the petitioner that she was
constrained to go away from the marital home and she wanted
some peace of mind and rest and for that purpose she has resided in
the house of one of her close friends, who is a lady and that she is
not in a position to immediately go back to the marital home
because of so many tensions in the marital life and that she is even
contemplating to go back to the marital home after she gets some
peace of mind. On the basis of the said statement recorded by the
police authorities concerned and on the basis of the instruction of
the 3rd respondent Station House Officer, the learned Prosecutor
submits that there may not be any case of illegal detention of
Swetha Renjith.
2. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted some
steps to be taken to have proper verification of the correctness of
the above said factual submissions made on behalf the 3 rd
respondent Station House Officer, we deem it fit to directly interact
with the alleged detenue. However, video conferencing through the
court mechanism may not be appropriate as it may affect privacy
of the lady. Hence we suggested to both sides that this case would
be listed in the chambers tomorrow morning and the Prosecutor
may ensure that WhatsApp video phone call is arranged to enable
us to directly interact with the alleged detenue tomorrow morning
and the chamber sitting would be arranged in the presence of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Prosecutor. Both
sides have agreed to this suggestion. Hence it is ordered that 3 rd
respondent Station House Officer or the police officer concerned
will ensure that WhatApp video phone call is arranged to enable us
to interact directly with the alleged detenue tomorrow morning in
the court chambers at 10.15 am. It shall be ensured that the
interaction of the alleged detenue is made in the presence of a lady
Police official and not any one else. Further the 3 rd respondent
Station House Office should also ensure that alleged detenue may
interact with the Prosecutor today itself through video call, so that
he can also be well equipped about the various factual aspects
involving the alleged detenue."
4. Today, the matter has been posted in Chambers and both
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
Smt.A.Parvathi Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
official respondents 1 to 3 are present. As directed by us, the
3rd respondent SHO has made arrangements to enable us to directly
interact with the alleged detenues "Shwetha Renjith", aged 35 years
(wife of the petitioner-Sri.B.Renjith) and "Shreyas", aged 12 years
(elder son of the petitioner and Shwetha) through video phone call on
Whatsapp. We interacted with both the alleged detenues, viz, Shwetha
Renjith, aged 35 years (wife of the petitioner-Sri.B.Renjith) and
Shreyas, aged 12 years (elder son of the petitioner and Shwetha)
through video phone call or Whatsapp. From the interaction, the
alleged detenue-Shwetha, would apprise us that it is on account of
martial discord and other related incidents that she was constrained to
go away from the marital home of the petitioner, and initially she had
resided in the residence of one of her close lady friends' and later she
had been able to get accommodation in a flat at the instance of the
4th respondent (who and his wife are stated to Shwetha's close
friends). Further that, the younger child "Shresht", aged 10 years, has
returned back to the petitioner's house and that the elder son Shreyas,
aged 12 years is with Shwetha, in the abovesaid flat. On being queried,
Shwetha has stated that as of now she does not intend to go back to
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
her husband's residence in view of marital discord, and that she is
already well versed in a line of online hotel business and that she feels
that she has to stay away from her marital home, and that she wants
her elder son Shreyas also be with her. Further, on being queried as to
whether the petitioner could see the elder son, she would state that as
of now she is prepared only to allow the child to interact with the
father only through video phone call etc and that she does not desire
the presence of the petitioner etc. We even suggested both the
petitioner-Renjith and Shwetha to think in terms of reconciliation or
also for some modality of alternate resolution mechanism. Though,
the petitioner-Renjith is interested in the same, we did not get any
positive response from Shwetha. Shwetha has clearly stated to us that
she has voluntarily gone away from the petitioner's residence and that
she is not under the illegal detention of anyone, etc.
5. In view of abovesaid aspects, we are constrained to take
the view that as of now Shwetha cannot be said to be under the illegal
detention of anyone, including R-4. So also the elder son of the
petitioner and Shwetha, viz Shreyas, aged 12 years, cannot be said to
be under the illegal detention of the child's mother for the purpose of
habeas corpus consideration. If the petitioner has any legally
justiciable grievances in the matter, then it is for him to workout the
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
remedies in the manner known to law.
6. Smt.A.Parvathi Menon, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that as of now the petitioner is totally in the
dark even about the present address of Shwetha and the minor son
Shreyas, and that if he has to workout his remedies by instituting
appropriate action before the Family Court or other Courts, then it is
highly essential that he should know the correct address of Shwetha
and the child, as otherwise it may be rather impossible for him to
institute any proper legal action before any competent forum
including the Family Court, and that this Court may direct the police
official concerned to furnish the present address of Shwetha and the
child.
7. Further it is stated on the behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner would undertake that he would not create any issues which
may disturb the safety of Shwetha, but that he would certainly seek for
appropriate orders before the competent forum like the Family Court
to get custody or alteast interim custory or visitorial rights etc as
regards the child who is now with Shwetha, etc and that those matters
are to be raised and decided by the appropriate forum in the manner
known to law.
8. The abovesaid submissions made on behalf of the
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
petitioner are placed on record. As of now, it appears that the
petitioner is totally in the dark even about the address of Shwetha and
the child, and his only remedy may be to approach the competent legal
forum like the Family Court and for that purpose he would certainly
require the present address and whereabouts of Shwetha and the
child.
9. On being queried, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public
Prosecutor appearing for official respondents 1 to 3 would submit that
the said respondents including the 3rd respondent SHO are not aware
about the present address of Shwetha and in view of the urgency of the
matter she was contacted over her mobile phone and she had come to
the police station for effectuating the interaction through video
conference with the Court today, and further that, if this Court directs
the 3rd respondent SHO can conduct appropriate enquiry and then
take the necessary steps.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 3rd respondent SHO may
ascertain from the persons concerned including R-4 herein, the
correct address and whereabouts of Shwetha and the child Shreyas,
aged 12 years, and while doing so, care may be taken as far as possible
to ensure that the police officials who may approach the residence of
Shwetha may go in plain cloths (not in uniform) if that is feasible.
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
After conducting such enquiry, the 3rd respondent SHO will furnish
the correct address of Shwetha to the petitioner. The said direction is
issued by this Court only for the limited purpose of enabling the
petitioner to institute necessary action before the competent legal
forum like the Family Court in accordance with law. We also record
the undertaking made by the petitioner that he will not cause any
problems to the safety of Shwetha, etc.
11. In the light of these aspects, we are not in a position to
grant the prayer sought for in this petition. All issues are left open to
be raised and decided in appropriate proceedings in the manner
known to law.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ
Petition (Criminal) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
MMG
W.P (Crl.) No. 145 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
MARRIAGE OFFICER,
MALLESWARAM, KARNATAKA
DATED 26.04.2010
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT
DATED 16.05.2021 BEFORE
3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT
DATED 19.05.2021 BEFORE
3RD RESPONDENT.
