Kerala High Court
Francis Allen Pinheiro vs Jemi Manoj on 2 June, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:38259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FRANCIS ALLEN PINHEIRO, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O ANDREW PINHEIRO,
KADAVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, HERO VILLA,
PARADISE ROAD, VYTILLA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682019.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
SMT.RAJI S.
SMT.RITTY K.REJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 JEMI MANOJ, 88-1ST CROSS,
RAMANNA GARDENS, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURUNORTH, BENGALURU, PIN - 560097
2 MANOJ P. THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS
88-1ST CROSS, RAMANNA GARDENS,
VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU, PIN - 560097
3 JESSY MANOJ, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O MANOJ P. THOMAS,88-1ST CROSS,
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
-2-
RAMANNA GARDENS,VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU, PIN - 560097.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560097
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION, MARKET ROAD,
NEAR KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ELAMKULAM,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI
SHRI.MUHAMMED RIFA P.M.
SMT.EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.
SHRI.SALMAN FARIS
SMT.GAYATHRI ASHISH NAIR
SMT.AISHA SUBAIR
SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH-SR.GP;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner alleges that his child is
being kept as a detenue illegally by respondents
1 to 3, but concedes that respondent No.1 is
child's mother and respondents 2 and 3 are his
maternal grandparents.
2. We had heard Smt.A.Parvathi Menon -
learned counsel for the petitioner, on an
earlier occasion when this matter was listed. On
that day, she said that respondents are
violating the orders of the learned Family
Court, Ernakulam, which has provided visitation
rights to her client on certain days; and hence
that her client has been constrained to approach
this Court.
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
3. We had then issued notice to the party
respondents, who entered appearance through
Sri.Ashik K.Mohamed Ali.
4. Before we move forward, we must record
that we had heard this matter again on
26.05.2025, when we passed the following interim
order:
Sri.Ashik K.Mohamed Ali - learned
counsel for the 1st respondent, says that
the child is still with his client,
residing at her address shown in the
cause title. He offered that the
petitioner can always travel to Bangalore
and see the child any time of his choice.
2. We, therefore, adjourn this
matter to be called on 02.06.2025.
In the meanwhile, we allow the
petitioner to travel to Bangalore and
meet the child at the residence of the 1st
respondent at 4 p.m. on 31.05.2025. The
interaction shall be allowed for a
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
continuous period of two hours, which is
to say till 6 p.m., and thereafter the
petitioner will return to await further
orders from this Court.
5. The learned counsel on both sides were
ad idem today that the interaction between the
father and the child took place in terms of our
directions; though both sides had different
stories as to the effectiveness and quality of
such.
6. Be that as it may, the question is
whether the child is under detention, which we
cannot find to be the case; and Smt.A.Parvathi
Menon also concedes this, but says that, as long
as the orders of the learned Family Court are
violated, it will have to be deemed that the
child is being detained illegally.
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
7. When we examine the orders of the
learned Family Court, it was evident that the
child had been allowed to be with the father on
certain days in interim custody during the
daytime. It is without doubt that the party
respondents are obligated to comply with the
same, unless the same is modified or vacated
through a process known to law.
8. As noticed above, the petitioner has
been able to see the child, and it is
ineluctable that he is not under detention. The
argument of Smt.A.Parvathi Menon that, when
there is a violation of the orders of the
learned Family Court, there should be a deemed
detention, is one that we do not choose to
answer at this stage because it is in the realm
of speculation as of now.
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
In the afore circumstances, we close this
Writ Petition, confirming our order extracted
above; with a direction to both sides to comply
with all orders issued by the learned Family
Court without fail.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 510/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A
NO.2137/2019 DATED 30.5.2019 ISSUED BY
THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN TR.P.C. NO.
2116/2019 DATED 15/03/2023 ISSUED BY
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.
1107/2019 IN OP 508/2019 DATED
23/08/2023 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A
NO.14/2023 IN IA NO. 1107/2019 & IA
NO. 17/2023 IN OP 508/2019 DATED
13/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P (FC)
20/2024 DATED 12/12/2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (FC)
808/2024DATED 7/1/2025
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CHILD
CUSTODY DIARY DATED 2/04/2025
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIA EMAIL DATED
9/4/2025
2025:KER:38259
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2025
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO
THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIA EMAIL DATED
10/4/2025
EXHIBIT P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN
WP(CRL).NO.254/2019 DATED 1.8.2019
