IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 205 of 2008(S)
1. SUBRAMANYA REYYA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SRI. K. VALLABHA RAO,
For Petitioner :SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :18/06/2008
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN &
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(Crl)NO.205 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Raman,J.
Petitioner alleges that his wife is under the illegal custody of the
3rd respondent father. According to the petitioner, after the marriage,
he alone came to Kerala, but his wife did not accompany him. Later,
the 3rd respondent-father sometimes in April visited the petitioner’s
house at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner requested the 3rd respondent
to send his wife back to Kochi; but she was not sent. It is suspected
that she is under the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent. From the
narration of the fact stated in the writ petition it would clearly show
that his wife, after the marriage, has not come to Kerala. At any rate,
the petitioner has no case that his wife was possibly taken from Kerala.
The fact that she did not come to Kerala either her return to Hyderabad
on an earlier occasion or at an early date, does not mean that the cause
of action had arisen in any part of Kerala. As such this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the question. In this connection, we may refer
to an un-reported decision of the Madras High Court wherein the
-2-
WP(Crl).No.205/2008
question regarding the jurisdiction was considered. In order to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court at least a fraction of the cause of action is
arising within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India
(( 2006)6 SCC 2007) the Apex Court held as follows:
“6. Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution is of
great importance. It reads as follows:
226(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue
directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of
such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories.
7. The question whether or not cause of action
wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen
within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be
decided in the light of the nature and character of the
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to
establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima
facie either, been infringed or is threatened to be
infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of
the Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take
place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.”
2. In Alchemist Limited and another v. State Bank of Sikkim
and others (AIR 2007 SC 1812) the Apex Court held that Article 226 of
the Constitution as it originally enacted had two-fold limitations on the
-3-
WP(Crl).No.205/2008
jurisdiction of High Courts with regard to their territorial jurisdiction.
Firstly, the power could be exercised by the High Court ” through out the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction”, i.e. the writs
issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its
jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is
empowered to issue such writs must be “within those territories, which
clearly implied that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by
residence or location within those territories.
3. Following the above two decisions, it has to be held that there are
two fold limitations; firstly the power is to be exercised through out
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, that is to say the
writs issued by the court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its
jurisdiction and secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court
is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories, which
clearly implied that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by
residence or location within those territories. Keeping those principles in
mind it has to be held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
writ petition.
Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach an
-4-
WP(Crl).No.205/2008
appropriate court for consideration of his grievance, this writ petition is
dismissed.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge.
kcv.