Kerala High Court
Jayesh Gangadharan vs Rejimol Mathew @ Merin Mathew on 17 January, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAYESH GANGADHARAN
AGED 39 YEARS
SON OF GANGADHARAN, THATTEKODE HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O.,
MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682040
BY ADVS.
P.M.ZIRAJ
IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENS:
1 REJIMOL MATHEW @ MERIN MATHEW
DAUGHTER OF MATHEW GEORGE, KUREEPARAMBIL, VAKAYIL ROAD,
NEAR ICICI BANK, KUNDANNUR,MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682304
2 SAJNA T.S.
AGED 35 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF SIDDIQUE, C/O. REJIMOL MATHEW @ MERIN
MATHEW, KUREEPARAMBIL, VAKAYIL ROAD, NEAR ICICI BANK,
KUNDANNUR,MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682506
4 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KOCHI CITY, PARK VIEW, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682011
P M SHAMEER GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)
The petitioner alleges that his daughter
of 10 years in age is being detained illegally
by the 2nd respondent - her own mother, with
the connivance of the 1st respondent. He
asserts that respondents 1 and 2 have
questionable relationship with each other and
makes certain allegations against the 1st
respondent particularly. He alleges that his
daughter is now being subjected to danger and
that she has been exposed to an environment
which is unsuitable; and thus that he has been
constrained to approach this Court through
this Writ Petition.
2. Hearing Sri.P.M.Ziraj - learned
counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines
when this matter was last listed on
15.01.2025, we ordered the petitioner to take
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
out notice to respondents 1 and 2, who are
present today, along with the alleged detenue
before us.
3. Smt.Renjini - learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent, submitted that the
allegations of the petitioner against her
client and the 1st respondent are uncharitable
and that they are good friends. She added that
her client had no recourse in life, when the
1st respondent took her under her wings and
protected her; and that they have no other
relationship, including business, between
them.
4. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned
Government pleader, affirmed that, except one
case against the 1st respondent - which is
registered under Section 406 read with Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code - there are no
other crimes which she is now facing. He then
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
submitted that the police have made further
enquiries, but have not been able to find any
other unfavourable inputs against her.
5. We interacted with the alleged
detenue, who initially said that she was
terrified of her father; but, on our
persuasion, she spent a fairly long time with
him within the court premises. We spoke with
her again, to see that her fear had subsided
to a large extent, if not fully; and she then
added that she will start attending classes,
which she said she was not doing on account of
her apprehension that she will be taken away
by her father from school.
6. We then talked to the petitioner,
who re-iterated what we have recorded above;
adding that his father is now unwell and
desirous of seeing his grandchild. Hearing him
in such manner, we ask the alleged detenue
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
again whether she has objection in seeing her
grandfather, particularly because he is stated
to be so unwell. She, however, expressed
reluctance and we understand that this is
because, her mother would not like to go to
the house of the respondent along with her, in
response to his request.
7. That being said, we are
exercising jurisdiction solely under the
Habeas Corpus jurisdiction. Matters relating
to the custody of the child and such other are
not within our province and our jurisdictional
ambit is only to verify whether the latter is
in illegal custody or otherwise.
8. Since we are convinced that the
child is not under detention, much less
illegal detention, our exercise of power in
this matter will have to cease.
In the afore circumstances, we dismiss
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
this writ petition, however, clarifying that
we have not entered into the merits of the
rival contentions relating to any other issue,
including the custody of the child and they
are all left open.
However, even though we have so
concluded, we have no doubt that the safety of
the child is paramount and that she cannot be
subjected to any situation which is either
deleterious or prejudicial to a child of that
age. We, therefore, leave liberty to the
learned Government Pleader to file additional
reports on this matter, if it becomes so
warranted. If any such is filed, this matter
be listed before us for appropriate orders.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
SAS JUDGE
2025:KER:3878
WP(CRL.) NO. 50 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 50/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.46 OF 2023 OF KANNUR POLICE STATION
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.1.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD
RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO FOURTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.1.2025
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THIRD RESPONDENT
TOWARDS EXHIBIT P2
