Kerala High Court
Sobin Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
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
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)
J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR)
SYAM K.P.
NIKITA NAIR C.S.
P.MUHAMMED SHIYAS
SUBINI P.C.
ASHISH GOPAL K.G
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VELLAYAMBALAM, CITY-
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA, PIN - 682021
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, MAHATMA GANDHI RD,
THEVARA JUNCTION, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 682015
5 XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
6 XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
2025:KER:12740
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
2
7 XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
SRI P M SHAMEER-GP;
SMT CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12740
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that respondents 5, 6 and 7 are
detaining his three young children illegally, without disclosing to
him their whereabouts.
2. Sri.Sunil T.G. - learned counsel for the petitioner,
explained that respondents 5 and 6 are the parents-in-law of the
petitioner, while the 7th respondent is his estranged wife; and
contended that the said persons are acting illegally in refusing
his client access to his children, who are only 4 and 3 years in
age. He added that, in fact, the 7 th respondent had filed
M.C.No.14/2022, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam, without any valid cause - which is manifest
from the fact that, even though the parties were called for
mediation, the said respondent refused to attend and, thereafter,
literally vanished with the children. He argued that his client,
therefore, had no other option but to approach this Court.
3. Smt.Carolin Sindhu Vas - learned counsel for the
party respondents, however, submitted that the 7 th respondent
and the children were deeply traumatized by the actions of the
2025:KER:12740
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
petitioner and that they have moved away from Kerala in fear.
She vehemently asserted that the children are not under any
illegal custody, but are with their own mother, namely the 7 th
respondent, living comfortably away from any threat posed by
the petitioner. She thus prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
4. We had earlier considered this matter on 12.02.2025,
on that day, we passed the following order:
"Smt.Carolin Sindhu Vas appears for
respondents 5, 6 & 7 and submits that the children
(alleged detenues) are not under detention but are
comfortable with their mother - the 7th respondent, at
Delhi.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
says that his client has not seen the children for a long
time now and therefore, that he is willing to pay for their
flight charges and accommodation charges for them to
travel from Delhi to Kochi.
Learned counsel for the party respondents
sought a day's time to confer with her clients.
List on 13/02/2025."
5. Thereafter, on 13.02.2025, Smt.Carolin Sindhu Vas
offered that the seventh respondent and the children will appear
before us online today.
6. The seventh respondent and the children so
appeared; and we interacted with them at 3 p.m. today. We
talked to the children, the elder of whom are twins of four years
2025:KER:12740
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
in age; while the third one is a daughter of three years. They
informed us that their names are Noel, Noah and Nora
respectively and that the twins are studying in LKG, while the
daughter is attending a Day Care facility. The 7 th respondent
unequivocally informed us that neither she, nor the children, are
in illegal custody of any person; and reaffirmed that she left
Kerala on her own, to work in a different State, because she had
been allegedly "terrorized" and "traumatized" by the petitioner.
7. It is thus obvious that the children cannot be found to
be under detention, much less illegal detention, particularly
when they are with their mother. It is luculent that the husband
and wife have matrimonial issues between them, which is
manifest from the latter having filed a case against the former
under the Domestic Violence Act.
8. It is, therefore, indubitable that we cannot issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus for the production of the children
because, if the petitioner wants their custody - neither
permanent or interim - it is for him to invoke appropriate
remedies in law.
9. In the afore circumstances and since we are
2025:KER:12740
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
convinced that the children are not under detention or in illegal
custody, we dismiss this writ petition.
In order to ensure the privacy of the parties and the
children, we direct that the names of the party respondents in
this case be anonymized in all papers.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
stu
2025:KER:12740
WP(CRL.) NO. 146 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 146/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEDIATION REPORT
DATED 27.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE ERNAKULAM
MEDIATION CENTRE
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2024 GIVEN
BY PETITIONER TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION
Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE THRIKKAKARA SDPO
