Kerala High Court
Mohammed Rashad vs The District Police Chief on 30 October, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED RASHAD
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O ABDULKHADER, EDALATH HOUSE, VILAYIL P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673641
BY ADV K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARECODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
673639
3 MUHAMMED ALI
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O CHOLAYIL ALIKKUTTY, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, POST UGRAPURAM,
MALAPPU, PIN - 673639
4 UMAIBA BEEVI
W/O MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 48 YEARS, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, POST
UGRAPURAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
U.K.DEVIDAS
S.K.SREELAKSHMY(K/210/2014)
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
2
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)
The petitioner alleges that his two children
are being detained illegally by respondents 3
and 4 - who are their maternal grandparents.
2. On 25.10.2024, when this matter
was called, Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon - learned
counsel for the petitioner, argued that, since
his client is the father of the children, he
should have been granted their custody, but
that, instead of this, their mother eloped with
somebody, leaving them in the illegal custody
of her parents, namely respondents 3 and 4. He
thus prayed that the party respondents be
directed to produce the children before us.
3. Adverting to the afore assertions,
we direct the petitioner to take out notice to
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
the party respondents on 25.10.2024; and today,
they were present before us, along with the
children.
4. Taking into account the specific
allegations in the pleadings, and as submitted
before us by Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, we let
the children with the petitioner - father,
under the hope that they will be able to bond
between themselves. However, the result was to
the contrary and the one of the children
started crying inconsolably and in a loud
voice, thus making it impossible for us to
allow any further interaction between them and
the petitioner - father.
5. Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon -
learned counsel for the petitioner, contented
that the afore behaviour of the children can
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
only be because, they have been heavily tutored
by the party respondents and their mother.
6. However, learned counsel for the
party respondents - Sri.U.K.Devidas, submitted
that the truth as far from this because, his
clients were entrusted with the children by
their mother, namely their daughter, and that
she is now missing. He added that his clients
also believe that their daughter has left with
somebody else; but that they are unable to
offer confirmation of this because, matter is
still pending investigation by the police.
7. It is thus obvious that, whatever
be assertions and contra-assertions that the
parties may make against each other, the
allegation that the children are being
illegally detained by the party respondents
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
cannot find our favour. This is because, they
are with their maternal grandparents; though
the question may arise as to who among the
party obtain better right to their custody
particularly when it is stated, without
confirmation, that their mother is still
missing. But this is not something we can speak
about or decide affirmatively in these
proceedings.
In the afore circumstances and since we
are fully conscious that we are called upon to
exercise jurisdiction only on a plea for
issuance of Habeas Corpus, we deem it
appropriate to close this matter because, as we
have said above, we cannot find the children to
be under detention, much less illegal
detention.
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
However, this will not preclude the
petitioner - father from invoking every remedy
that may be available to him under the law,
including to obtain their custody; for which,
we clarify that none of our observations herein
will be a fetter.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
SAS
2024:KER:82350
WP(CRL.) NO. 1151 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1151/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1107/2024
OF ARECODE POLICE STATION
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.10.2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2024
