IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 323 of 2010(S)
1. T.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 73 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. M.CHANDRALEKHA, AGED 67 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETEND BY
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. MR.STANLEY STEPHEN, DARPANA ACADEMY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Petitioners, the maternal grandparents of a young girl
Keerthana.S, aged 19 years (date of birth – 23.12.1990) have
come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas
corpus to search for, trace and produce the said Keerthana
(hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue’). According to
the petitioners, the alleged detenue is under the illegal
confinement and detention of the 3rd respondent. Respondent
Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the alleged detenue. The
petitioners came to this Court with the grievance that
respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not taking any action to secure the
release of the alleged detenue from the illegal custody of the 3rd
respondent. She was being illegally detained and confined at
Ahmadabad, Gujarat, complained the petitioners.
2. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not initially impleaded
in this petition. The matter came up for hearing and after
discussions at the Bar, the petitioners impleaded respondent
Nos.4 and 5 also. This petition was filed on 10.08.2010. The
same was admitted later on 11.08.2010. Notice was ordered to
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 2
the respondents. We directed respondents 1 and 2 to ensure
that the alleged detenue is produced before us.
3. This judgment must be read in continuation of the
earlier orders passed by this Court resting with the order dated
20.08.2010.
4. The alleged detenue was traced at Ahmadabad by the
police and brought to Kerala. She was produced before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, in accordance
with the directions issued by this Court on 20.08.2010. The
learned C.J.M in charge directed that the alleged detenue be
accommodated at Mahila Mandiram, Poojappura, Trivandrum,
and directed Superintendent of that institution to ensure that the
alleged detenue is produced before this Court on 30.08.2010.
5. Today when the case is called, the petitioners are
present. They are represented by their counsel. The 3rd
respondent has appeared before Court. He is represented by his
counsel. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have also appeared before
Court. They are not represented by any counsel. The alleged
detenue has been produced before Court from the Mahila
Mandiram, Trivandrum, where she was accommodated from
21.08.2010 to this date as per the directions of the C.J.M in
charge, Trivandrum.
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 3
6. As the alleged detenue comes not from the custody of
her parents and maternal grandparents – the petitioners, and she
was allegedly traced in the custody of the 3rd respondent, we
permitted the petitioners as also respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the
younger sister of the alleged detenue to have interactions with
her in the Chamber.
7. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged
detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with the petitioners.
Subsequently we interacted with respondent Nos.4 and 5. Still
later we interacted with the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel
for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent
and the learned Government Pleader were also involved in the
interactions.
8. The alleged detenue states before us that she had
gone to Ahmadabad along with the 3rd respondent. She wanted
to continue her studies in Music there at Darppana Academy.
She had secured some voluntary engagement (employment)
there. She was residing along with the 3rd respondent in an
apartment taken on hire by him. She was traced by the police
and was brought to Kerala and as per the directions of this Court, the
learned C.J.M had directed that she be accommodated at Mahila
Mandiram. There she was given opportunity to interact with her
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 4
grandparents and parents. The alleged detenue was also given
counselling at Mahila Mandiram by a counsellor by name
Dr.Seema Bhaskar.
9. In the course of our interactions with the alleged
detenue, the alleged detenue stated before us that she does not
want to continue to reside with the 3rd respondent and that she
would now choose to go along with her parents. She admitted
that she was residing along with the 3rd respondent in an
apartment at Ahmadabad. She hastened to state before us that
there was no improper relationship between her and the 3rd
respondent.
10. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, the parents of the alleged
detenue, stated before us that they are now willing to take the
alleged detenue with them. The alleged detenue wants to
continue the counselling with Dr.Seema Bhaskar and respondent
Nos.4 and 5 agree that the needful shall be done to help the
alleged detenue to get continued counselling support from the
said Counsellor Dr.Seema Bhaskar. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had
undertaken before us to do everything that is necessary to give
proper support, guidance and patronage to the alleged detenue.
11. The petitioners, the maternal grandparents of the
alleged detenue, state before us that they are perfectly happy
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 5
with the arrangement of the alleged detenue going along with
respondent Nos.4 and 5 and that that is what they always wanted
to happen. It is true that the petitioners initially had a grievance
that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were trusting the 3rd respondent
unnecessarily and unreasonably and were giving needless and
undeserved opportunity for the 3rd respondent to interact with
the alleged detenue. They are happy if respondent Nos.4 and 5
shall look after all her necessities and genuine interests.
12. The 3rd respondent stated before us that he had taken
the alleged detenue from the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5 at
Gudallur. According to him this was done by him admittedly
without the consent of respondent Nos.4 and 5. But he would
assert that he did so only in the interest of the alleged detenue.
He is a Music Therapist and according to him the alleged
detenue requires Music Therapy and he had been giving such
therapy to the alleged detenue. According to the 3rd respondent
it was as requested by the 4th respondent, the father of the
alleged detenue, that he started Music Therapy for the alleged
detenue. However, he accepts that he had taken the alleged
detenue from the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5 without
informing respondent Nos.4 and 5. This he had done only at the
request of the alleged detenue, submits the 3rd respondent. He
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 6
further admits that he had taken her to Ahmadabad. He had got
her admitted to the Darpana Academy. He had helped her to
secure a voluntary engagement (employment) there. She was
being accommodated along with him in an apartment taken on
hire by him. He would hasten to admit that he had no improper
relationship with the alleged detenue. The 3rd respondent
asserts that the alleged detenue had while at Ahmadabad joined
B.A. Psychology Course conducted by the I.G.N.O.U – a distance
education course.
13. In response to our queries, the 3rd respondent states
that if respondent Nos.4 and 5 do not want him to have any
relationship with the alleged detenue, he does not want to
continue any relationship with the alleged detenue. He is
perfectly happy if respondent Nos.4 and 5 agree and undertake
to take care of their daughter, the alleged detenue. He
undertakes before Court that he shall not hereafter have any
relationship with the alleged detenue and that he shall not
interfere in the management of the affairs of the alleged detenue
by her parents, respondent Nos.4 and 5.
14. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that though no crime has been
registered regarding the alleged disappearance of the alleged
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 7
detenue from the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the police, as
directed by this Court, had made endeavour to trace the alleged
detenue and she was ultimately traced in the company of the 3rd
respondent at Ahmadabad. According to the police they were
living together and the learned Government Pleader points out
that the police have information that the relationship was not
proper or fair. The 3rd respondent, a married person who has
strained relationship with his wife, had taken the alleged
detenue along with him and was having an objectionable live in
relationship with her at Ahmadabad.
15. Be that as it may, we feel that it is unnecessary for us
to delve deeper into the various controversies raised. We take
note of the fact that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as also the alleged
detenue agree that the alleged detenue shall go along with
respondent Nos.4 and 5. We take note of the stand of the
petitioners that they are happy if the alleged detenue leaves the
Court along with respondent Nos.4 and 5. We take note of the
undertaking given by the 3rd respondent before us in person in
the presence of his counsel that he shall not in any way interfere
with the relationship between the alleged detenue and
respondent Nos.4 and 5. We take note of, record and accept his
undertaking that he shall not in any way contact the alleged
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 8
detenue or have any relationship with her hereafter. We are
satisfied, in these circumstances, that this Writ Petition can now
be disposed of with appropriate directions.
16. In the result:
i) This Writ Petition is allowed;
ii) We permit the alleged detenue to go from Court along
with her parents, ie. respondent Nos.4 and 5 as desired by her;
iii) We record the undertaking of respondent Nos.4 and 5
that they shall take proper care of the alleged detenue and shall
afford her support of counselling by Dr.Seema Bhaskar, who has
been counselling her after she was admitted to the Mahila
Mandiram;
iv) We take note of, record and accept the undertaking of
the 3rd respondent that he shall not in any way interfere with the
continued residence of the alleged detenue with respondent
Nos.4 and 5 and that he shall not in any way contact the alleged
detenue hereafter;
v) We record the undertaking of the learned Government
Pleader that respondent Nos.4 and 5 or the petitioners or the
alleged detenue can make appropriate complaint before
respondent Nos.1 and 2 or before any other police officer if the
3rd respondent violates the above undertaking and that the police
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 9
shall do the needful if there be any improper and culpable
conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent;
vi) We record that the alleged detenue has accordingly
left the Court along with her parents – respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Hand over copes of this judgment to the learned
Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 10
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
Petitioners are present. They are grandparents of the
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 11
alleged detenue. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of
the police submits that the alleged detenue has already been
traced at Ahmadabad in Gujarat and she is being brought to
Kerala. The police party shall start with the alleged detenue only
today. Before the closing of Courts, it is impossible hence to
cause production of the alleged detenue before this Court. The
learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the alleged
detenue may be permitted to be produced before this Court and
some interim arrangements may be made for the custody of the
alleged detenue till she is produced before this Court. The
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd
respondent has no authority to keep the alleged detenue with
him. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, the parents of the alleged
detenue, have also appeared before this Court today. They are
not represented by any counsel. We have interacted with
respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 submits before us that he
has also not given any authority for the 3rd respondent to keep
his daughter, the alleged detenue, in his custody. The learned
Government Pleader submits that no crime having been
registered, appropriate directions may be issued to the police as
to what the police should do with the alleged detenue when she
is brought to Kerala at a time when this Court is not sitting.
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 12
2. A telegram is received by the Registrar from the 3rd
respondent, in which he has raised certain contentions.
3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, we direct
that this case be called before this Court again on 30.08.2010, ie.
the next date of sitting. In the meantime, it is directed that the
alleged detenue shall be produced before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate as soon as the alleged detenue reaches
Trivandrum. The petitioners as also respondent Nos.4 and 5
shall be informed of the date and time of production of the
alleged detenue before the learned C.J.M by respondent No.2.
The learned C.J.M shall hear all the parties including the alleged
detenue and the 3rd respondent (if he appears), and take an
appropriate decision regarding accommodation/residence of the
alleged detenue from the date of production till 30.08.2010. The
learned C.J.M shall ensure that the alleged detenue appears
before this Court on 30.08.2010, whatever be the interim
arrangements regarding the accommodation of the alleged
detenue till then.
4. Call on 30.08.2010.
5. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.
W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2010 13
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/