Suma P, D/O Babu vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 31157 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suma P, D/O Babu vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

WP(CRL.) NO. 1143 OF 2024                                2024:KER:81237




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                      &

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

         FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                         WP(CRL.) NO. 1143 OF 2024


PETITIONER:

              SUMA P, D/O BABU, AGED 31 YEARS
              UDAYANPURATHKONATHU HOUSE, PERUMKOOR, KONCHIRA P.O
              VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 615


              BY ADVS.HAPPYMON BABU
              BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

     2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION
              THIRUVAMBADY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691571

     3        SUBASH S, S/O SIVA PRASAD
              AGED 36 YEARS, S.S BHAVAN, NADUVILAKARA PULLICHIRA P.O.,
              KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691304

              BY ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
              HARIKRISHNAN M S
              SHAKTHI PRAKASH(K/1170/2009)
              DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10)

              SRI P M SHAMEER-GP; SRI HARIKRISHNAN M S

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD             ON
01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(CRL.) NO. 1143 OF 2024                               2024:KER:81237



                                 JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

We are fully conscious that this Writ Petition has been filed by the

petitioner seeking the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus; but that the

underlying controversy between the parties is with respect to the custody

of the child.

2. We do not propose to write the facts involved or the controversy

presented in detail because, pending this matter, the parties have arrived

at a settlement, though each of them requesting that their respective legal

rights be left open in future.

3. When this matter was considered by us on 25.10.2024, we

interacted with the alleged detenue and the parties; and our opinion

gathered on that day was indited in the order of the said date, which is

extracted as under:

"Third respondent has appeared in person along with alleged detenue. The petitioner is also present. We allowed the alleged detenue to interact with the petitioner, who is his mother and we find that he has equal affection for both sides.

It is conceded by both parties that for a week, the child can be with the mother.

We, therefore, permit the parties that for a week, the child can be with the mother. Therefore, we permit the mother to hold custody of the child particularly because we are told that the latter is studying in a school next to the former's house.

List this matter at 12.45 p.m in our Chambers on 1.11.24 on which day, parties and the alleged detenue will be present before us."

WP(CRL.) NO. 1143 OF 2024 2024:KER:81237

4. Today, both sides are before us again, along with the child; and

they agree that the latter can be with the mother on all week days, while

his custody be given to the father from 10 a.m. every Saturday, till 5 p.m.

on ensuing Sundays.

5. As we have said above, both sides also requested that their

respective rights, if any, to be invoked in future be left open.

In the afore circumstances, recording the consent between the

parties, we dispose of this Writ Petition holding that the alleged detenue is

not under any kind of detention; but that he will be with his mother,

except on Saturdays and Sundays. On the afore days, he will be given in

custody to the father at 10 a.m. on Saturday, to be returned at 5 p.m. on

Sunday. The place of exchange shall be the front gate of the mother's

residence, as also agreed by the parties.

Needless to say, if the parties require any modification, they are at

liberty to either approach this Court, or to invoke any other remedy that

may be available to them before the learned Family Court; for which, all

rival contentions are left open.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

SD/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE jes WP(CRL.) NO. 1143 OF 2024 2024:KER:81237

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit -P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

Exhibit -P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADHAR CARD ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

// TRUE COPY //

P.S. TO JUDGE