Kerala High Court
Arun Mathew vs The Station House Officer on 20 January, 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
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 60 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ARUN MATHEW,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. DR. V.M. MATHEW , VALLAKALIL HOUSE, FLAT 15
D, NATIONAL KINGDOM,PALARIVATTOM, NEAR METRO
PILLAR 522, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682025
BY ADVS.
B.S.SURESH KUMAR
GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION KADUTHURUTHY P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686606
2 A.C.GEORGE,
S/O. SKARIA VARKEY, AIKKARA HOUSE, KURUPPUMTHARA
P.O., KOTTAYAM ., PIN - 686603
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE(K/000516/1995)
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM(K/001758/1999)
V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006)
K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013)
JIJO PAUL(K/1009/2023)
ANJALI SUNIL(K/532/2024)
WP(Crl).No.60 of 2025
2025:KER:3997
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl).No.60 of 2025
2025:KER:3997
3
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
================================
WP(Crl).No.60 of 2025
================================
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner alleges that his minor daughter is being
illegally detained by the 2nd respondent on behalf of his sister,
who is the mother of the said child.
2. On 16.01.2025, when we considered this matter,
noticing Ext.P4 Memo filed by the 2nd respondent before the
learned Family Court, we had issued the following order:
"The petitioner asserts that Ext.P4 Memo filed by the
2nd respondent is wrong and that the child is with him.
2. Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar - learned counsel for the
petitioner, reiterated the afore assertion, saying that
his client will accept all consequences, if the same is
found to be untrue.
3. We would not have normally intervened in a matter
like this because, we are aware that the parties are
involved in a custody matter over the child; and that
Ext.P4 Memo has been filed before the learned Family
Court.
4. In usual circumstances, the petitioner ought to have
moved the learned Family Court itself with the afore
assertions.
2025:KER:3997
5. We, therefore, make it clear to Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar
that if we are to find the afore assertion of his client to
be factually wrong, he would be mulcted with costs. He
accepted this.
6. On the afore basis, we allow the petitioner to take
out notice before admission to the 2 nd respondent by
Special Messenger. The learned Government Pleader
will obtain instructions from respondent No.1.
List for further consideration on 20.01.2025."
3. Today, the 2nd respondent is present before us in
person and is represented by Sri.Philip T Varghese, who
vehemently asserted that the child is abroad, as correctly stated
by him in Ext.P4; and also made available certain documents,
including the "Airline Boarding Pass" in substantiation.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner -
Sri.B.S.Suresh Kumar, thereupon requested that this writ
petition be allowed to be withdrawn, conceding that, at the time
it was filed, his client was under the strong impression that,
notwithstanding Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent was detaining the
child.
5. We must say that the stand of the petitioner is rather
uncharitable to the 2nd respondent, particularly in having moved
a Writ Petition of this nature without making proper enquiries.
The result is that the 2nd respondent has been dragged to this
2025:KER:3997
Court; and his learned Counsel affirms that there were enquiries
made by the Police, which have lowered his esteem in his
neighborhood.
6. Be that as it may, in normal circumstances, this
Court would have considered imposing exemplary costs on the
petitioner; however, which we choose otherwise, solely because
of the submissions of his learned Counsel that he is suffering
and subjected to misery on having been allegedly denied the
company of his child who has been taken away from India
illegally and contrary to law.
However, the 2nd respondent will certainly have to be
compensated for the expenses, which he has been forced to
endure, which we fix to a sum of Rs.2500/-. The petitioner will
pay the said amount to Sri. Philip T Varghese - learned Counsel
for the 2nd respondent, within a period of one week from today.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA,
JUDGE
Mms
2025:KER:3997
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 60/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP
(DIVORCE) 1744/2024 OF FAMILY COURT
ERNAKULAM DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
24.09.2024 IN OP (G&W) 1723/2024 OF
FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
23.09.2024 IN IA 4/2024 IN OP (G&W)
1723/2024 OF FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 18.10.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM IN OP (G&W)
1723/2024 OF FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
01.11.2024 IN IA 7/2024 IN OP (G&W)
1723/2024 OF FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
01.11.2024 IN IA 6/2024 IN OP (G&W)
1723/2024 OF FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE RESIDENCE PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER'S
WIFE
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE E-
MAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE SCHOOL WHERE HIS
CHILD WAS STUDYING
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.10.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
2025:KER:3997
Exhibit R2 True copy of boarding pass issued to
Miya Mathew dated 08.09.2024
