Mayoori vs Station House Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 21750 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                    WP(CRL.) NO. 304 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          MAYOORI
          AGED 33 YEARS
          D/O VIKARMANPILLAI, ARACKAL HOUSE, A L JACOB ROAD,
          KACHERIPADI, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O.
          BY ADVS.
          T.P.PRADEEP
          MINIKUMARY M.V.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN-680503.
    2     MANOJKUMAR,
          VELUTHEDATHU HOUSE, CHOVVANNUR.P.O, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT-680517.
    3     LATHA MADHU,
          VELUTHEDATHU HOUSE, CHOVVANNUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN-680517.
          BY ADVS.
          DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
          SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


          R2 - By Adv Santhosh P Pothuval
          SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(Crl.NO.304/2021                      - 2 -


               K.Vinod Chandran & C.Jayachandran, JJ
                    -----------------------------------
                       WP(Crl)No. 304 of 2021
                   ------------------------------------
              Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2021

                                  JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran,J.

The petitioner is a mother seeking a writ of Habeas

Corpus to produce her minor son, Darsan, from the alleged

unlawful confinement of the 3rd respondent, who is the sister-

in-law of the 2nd respondent; the father of the child.

Admittedly, the parents are divorced as early as in 2014. The

2nd respondent is said to have taken the child, after

dissolution of the marriage. Both the 2 nd respondent and the

petitioner are remarried. It is the allegation that the 2 nd

respondent is living with his family, outside the State of

Kerala, while the minor child Master Darsan is kept in the

custody of the 3rd respondent.

2. The petitioner being denied, on repeated requests to

see the child, filed an original petition under the Guardian and

Wards Act, which stood allowed by Ext.P1 decree dated

03.07.2018 in O.P.No.50 of 2016. The petitioner alleges that

her counsel did not inform her and hence there was delay in

filing execution petition. A complaint was raised before the

Bar Council of Kerala and now an execution petition has been

filed as per Ext.P2. The 2 nd respondent has also filed Ext.P1

application to set aside the exparte decree, with a delay of

995 days. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition on

the ground that the 2nd respondent refuses to appear before

the Family Court and produce the child.

3. We do not intend to enter into the merits of either the

contention regarding the delay in seeking execution of Ext.P1

or the delay caused in applying for setting aside the exparte

decree. The Family Court will have to look into the matter and

decide the same. But in the meantime, the child necessarily

has to be produced before the Family Court and parties agree

that the same shall be done on 09.11.2021 at 1.45 pm.

4. The Family Court shall allow the mother to converse

with the child alone, for whatever time the court deems fit.

We say this, especially since the child has been in the custody

of the father for quite a long time and there would be

reluctance to associate with the mother.

5. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the

opinion that the Family Court could issue appropriate orders

allowing the interaction of the child with the mother, at

whatever intervals, so as to ensure some familiarity being

developed between mother and child. We do not think that a

Writ of Habeas Corpus would lie, but the directions herein

would facilitate expeditious disposal. We do not see any

illegal custody, as such, since even if the child is with the 3 rd

respondent; he is handed over to the 3 rd respondent by the

father; the natural guardian. We reiterate that we have not

spoken on the merits of the matter which is left to the Family

Court to decide. Writ petition is disposed of.

sd/-

K.Vinod Chandran Judge

sd/-

C.Jayachandran, Judge lgk

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 304/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 03/07/2018 IN O.P.NO.50/2016 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO.4/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE HISTORY OF EP NO.4/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO.99/200O IN EP NO.4/2021.