Aswathi K vs State Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 22026 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                   &
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        WP(CRL.) NO. 300 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ASWATHI K., AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.YAMUNA KRISHNAN,
          VALIPARAMBIL, KANGARAPPADY, VADAKODE P.O.,
          KOCHI-682 021.
          BY ADV P.SIVARAJ


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA,
          POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
    2     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
          TAMILNADU, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
          MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004, TAMILNADU.
    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO),
          THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 021.
    4     STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NAMBIYOOR POLICE STATION,
          GOBI (T.K), TAMIL NADUD, PIN-638 458.
    5     GURUMOORTHY C., KUMARAN NAGAR, 10TH STREET,
          KURUMBA PALAYAM, S.S.KALAM, COIMBATORE-641 107,
          TAMIL NADU.
    6     KANDASWAMY, AGED 60 YEARS, 1/54, POLAVAPALAYAM,
          NAMBIYOOR, GOBI (T.K), ERODE, TAMIL NADU PIN-638 458.
          BY ADVS.
          SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN
          R.SUDHEER
          K.N.RAJANI
          KRISHNENDHU V.B
          NIVED K.V




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Crl.) No.300 of 2021 [S]     - 2 -



            K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
           ---------------------------------------
                 W.P.(Crl.) No.300 of 2021 [S]
          ----------------------------------------
          Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2021

                              JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran,J.

The petitioner is the mother of a minor child,

who seeks production of the child from the illegal

custody of his paternal grandfather. The father of the

child is no more and the petitioner is remarried. The

child was living with the petitioner, and when the mother

and child visited the paternal grandparent's home, it is

averred that they requested the child to be left in their

care for some days. The petitioner was not resumed with

the custody of the child and she also apprehended that

the child is in illegal custody.

2. By order dated 26.10.2021 we directed

production of the child, who was said to be in his

paternal grandparent's house at Erode. The child has been

produced before us by a Sub Inspector of Police at Erode.

We interacted with the child, who refused to go with the

mother. He said he is happy with his paternal grandfather

and is admitted at a School at Erode. He admitted that he

earlier studied in Ernakulam and is now in Erode, only

for a few months. He alleged that he was not happy with

his mother, especially since his grandmother used to

perpetrate physical violence on him.

3. We directed the child to have interaction

with the mother. After about an hour, we saw the child

again, who still maintains that he wants to go with his

paternal grandfather. We hence invited the grandfather

and the mother again into our chambers. The mother was

weeping and fervently prayed for custody, which we

appraised her, has to be agitated before the Family

Court. The child was very adamant, that he wants to go

with his paternal grandfather and not with his mother.

The child also suggested that the mother could come and

stay with the paternal grandprents, which is agreeable

even to the grandfather. However, we did not put forth

such a suggestion, because the mother is remarried. We do

not find any illegal custody as of now and the child's

welfare is best served, as of now with his grandfather.

We requested the grandfather to also allow visitation to

the mother, if she approaches them at Erode and permit

regular conversation over the telephone. The child at

this point translated our request in Tamil to the

paternal grandfather and he is agreeable.

Having interacted with the child, we are

convinced that he is happy with his paternal grandfather

and there is no illegal restrain placed on him. We close

the writ petition, however leaving the parties the remedy

to approach the appropriate forum for custody, if they so

desire, in which event, the issue will be decided

untrammelled by any of our observations in this judgment.

Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE sp/03/11/2021 //True Copy// P.A. to Judge

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD ISSUED BY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANAYANNOOR.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE ST.JOSEPHS E.M. H.S.S THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT