The Kerala High Court on 20.01.2021(Wednesday) Comprising of a bench of justices K Vinod Chandran and M R Anitha has dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a 52-year-old man claiming to be a "spiritual guru" seeking release of a 21-year-old woman from the custody of her parents terming her as his "spiritual live-in-partner". (Dr.Kailas Natarajan v State of Kerala and others).
The Bench dismissed the petition after finding that the woman was "incapable of taking a decision for herself" and that her "parents were best equipped to deal with her present situation".
However, in the instant case, the bench opined, on the basis of its interactions with the woman, that the woman was of a vulnerable mental condition:
“We observe that from our interaction with the subject the suggestion was of a vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance, which persuaded us to refuse invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226," the Court held.
Facts of the Case
The habeas corpus petition was filed by a 52-year-old man, who claimed to have renounced worldly life and separated from his wife and daughters ten years ago. It was stated that the petitioner's parents were Government employees belonging to a well settled family with good financial background and the petitioner is said to have completed MBBS from Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and after his marriage to a woman in 2001, proceeded to the UK for post graduation in Psychiatry. After returning, he initially pursued the medical profession, but later proclaimed himself to be a Vedic Yogacharya/Instructor.
In his plea, the man alleged illegal detention of the woman by her own parents on the ground that he had a live-in relationship with her for the last two and half years. The man moved the court as the live-in spiritual partner of the woman and does not speak of any marriage between them.
Contention of the Parties
The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not seeking that the subject should be allowed to live with the petitioner, but she should be let free. It was argued that the subject is a brilliant student and her mark sheets would show the outstanding performance in examinations; which was produced across the Bar. It cannot at all be said that she is not capable of deciding for herself. It was argued that she is a major, quiet competent to decide on her own way of life as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009 (16) SCC 360 Girish vs. Radhamony and 2018 (16) SCC 368 Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M.
The learned counsel for the respondents however submits that there is no illegal detention and the respondents are trying to provide psychiatric help to their daughter. The counter-affidavit filed admits that the daughter of the respondents 3 & 4, the subject of this writ petition, was a brilliant student who suffered a bout of depression for which the parents had consulted the petitioner. The petitioner in the guise of counseling and therapy insisted on solitary sessions with the subject after which the subject developed an obsessive attachment to the petitioner. The parents believe that her obsessive thoughts are not normal and that she require treatment.
Courts Observation & Judgment
On January 4, the division bench, after interacting with the detenu in private, had observed :
"We were not satisfied that the subject is capable of taking a decision; especially by the manner in which she interacted with us".
The High Court noted in its interim order passed earlier that the detenu was wearing vermilion in her head as done by married women. She stated that she was being illegally detained by her parents. Though she complained that she was subjected to domestic violence, the High Court observed that there were no such indications.
The court noted that the man is also stated to have not cooperated for a direct and detailed inquiry and was unwilling to disclose his personal and professional details.
The court said, “On local inquiry it is reported that there is no information of the petitioner having any followers. It is reported that the petitioner is not leading a socially acceptable life and has difficulty in explaining the means and goals of his spirituality”.
The court observed that there was no allegation that the parents had illegally removed the woman from the man’s custody.
The court recalled its earlier interaction with the woman wherein she categorically denied she was married and asserted the relationship with the man to be divine.
The court offered her assistance for counselling and tried to persuade her to at least, at its behest, to interact with a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst for it to get an expert opinion, which she refused point blank, it said.
The court said, “We attempted such a course of action since the subject, on our assessment, was incapable of taking a decision for herself and the parents too had raised serious concerns of her obsessive behaviour which we too witnessed during our interaction”.
In its judgment, the court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hadiya case holding that its interactions with the woman suggested that she was having “vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance.”
The court also referred to a passage from the Hadiya case where the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing to suggest that Hadiya suffered from any kind of “mental incapacity or vulnerability”.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
