[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Bini Manual vs District Police Chief on 8 December, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:94929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1587 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BINI MANUAL, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O MANUAL,
RESIDING AT CHENNATTU HOUSE, INDHIRA
NAGAR.P.O.,KALLACHI VIA ,KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673506
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.P.BIJU
SMT.MERSEENA VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOZHIKODE RURAL DISTRICT POLICE
OFFICE,VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673105
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUVANNAMMUZHY
POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673528
3 ELIKUTTY, W/O GEORGE,VANIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE,
AVADUKKA P.O, PRUVANNAMUZHI VIA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673528
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MANU NAIR G.
SHRI.SIDHARTH MURALI
SHRI.BHARATH MURALI
SRI N B SUNIL NATH-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94929
WP(Crl) 1587/25
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner alleges that her 9 year old son is being
detained by the 3rd respondent - who, she admits, is her mother-
in-law. She asserts that there are matrimonial disputes between
her and her husband; and that taking advantage of this, the child
is being detained by the 3rd respondent; hence, that she has been
constrained to approach this Court, particularly since she has not
been given any information about him for the last few months.
2. After we issued notice to the respondents, the parties
offered to appear before us and they did so on 24.11.2025, when,
after interacting with them, we passed the following order:
The petitioner, the 3rd respondent and the
child were before us today. We found the child to
be equally comfortable with his mother and
paternal grandmother - namely the petitioner and
the 3rd respondent, respectively.
2. The parties concede that there are some
issues between the petitioner and her husband and
that she has obtained an order of shared residence
against him.
3. The 3rd respondent told us that, in order
to obtain some solution, she is willing to stay
2025:KER:94929
WP(Crl) 1587/25
temporarily, till the next posting date, with her
nephew, so that the petitioner and the child can
remain in the house. She explained that she is
making thus suggestion so that the child can
continue to attend classes, which is very close to
her house. She added that her son - the husband
of the petitioner, will be in India by the 30th of
this month.
4. We, therefore, allow the petitioner to
retain the interim custody of the child until the
next posting date and to reside in the house qua
which she has obtained protection order.
5. We further record that the 3rd respondent
has agreed to shift her residence temporarily, until
the next posting date, with her nephew at
Kolenchery.
6. We adjourn this matter to be called on
02.12.2025, on which day all the parties, as also
the son of the 3rd respondent (husband of the
petitioner), shall be present with the child.
It is needless to say that the petitioner will
ensure that the child does not lose any further
classes.
3. Thereafter, on 02.12.2025, the son of the 3 rd
respondent - namely the husband of the petitioner, was also
present before us and the parties requested that they be referred
to counselling, which was acceded to by us, allowing them to
avail the facilities of the Family Counselling Centre of this Court.
However, the report from the Counselor did not indicate a
possibility of conciliation between the parties.
2025:KER:94929
WP(Crl) 1587/25
4. Therefore, on 03.12.2025, we again considered the
matter and passed the following order:
The parties were present personally before us
today, along with the child.
2. Interestingly, the wife submitted that she
has been living for the last few days in the house
of the husband to take care of the child. We
appreciate this.
3. However, the wife then added that, since
the husband has come back, she has fear that he
may trouble her.
4. The husband, however, submitted that he
has no such intention and that the wife is welcome
to stay in his house.
5. The wife, at this time, submitted that she
is finding other employment and is likely to stay in
a house closer to the school of the child, but
wanted some more time to confirm this.
6. In the afore circumstances, we adjourn
this matter to be called on 15.12.2025, recording
that the wife will be allowed to stay with the
husband so that the child will have access to both
his parents until that date.
On the next posting date, the parties need
not be present, though we require the wife to give
us full details about her new employment and the
place of residence, if it is to be altered.
5. Today also, the parties were before us, along with the
child and we talked to the latter for a long time; but he made
his preference to be with his father very clear, even crying when
we asked him to be with his mother. In the midst of this,
2025:KER:94929
WP(Crl) 1587/25
allegations have been raised by both sides that there were even
physical assaults and verbal confrontations, when the order of this
Court dated 03.12.2025 was attempted to be complied with.
6. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.Sunil Nath, in
fact, affirmed that there appear to have been some incidents in
the house of the 3rd respondent, when the order dated 03.12.2025
had been attempted to be given effect to; but added that the
alleged injuries stated to have been suffered by the parties are
not serious.
7. The sum total is that we cannot decide on the question
of custody of the child, particularly when the parties are at war
and he shows a clear preference. Of course, such preferences are
subject to change by the efflux of time. But, it is not within our
province, when we decide this matter under the Habeas Corpus
jurisdiction, to enter into any such; and the parties must invoke
their remedies before the appropriate Court.
8. As far as this Court is concerned, we cannot find the
2025:KER:94929
WP(Crl) 1587/25
child to be under illegal detention, though the allegation of the
petitioner - that she has not been given access to him - may or
may not be correct, which is subject to the evidence to be led by
the parties appropriately in due course. When we cannot find the
child to be under detention, it is perspicuous that we cannot
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus either.
In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
RR
2025:KER:94929
WP(Crl) 1587/25
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1587 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04.11.2025 IN CMP NO.4136/2025 IN MC
NO.157/2025 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KOYILANDY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
11.11.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
11.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
