High Court Kerala High Court

Flory Chacko vs Cyril Sanjay Peter Aged 40 Years on 16 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Flory Chacko vs Cyril Sanjay Peter Aged 40 Years on 16 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 269 of 2009(S)


1. FLORY CHACKO W/O.P.C.CHACKO
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CYRIL SANJAY PETER AGED 40 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY

5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.R.VINOD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :16/07/2009

 O R D E R
                 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
             --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(Crl)No.269 OF 2009
              ----------------------------------------------
            DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Basant, J.

Petitioner, the mother of the alleged detenue Sony, aged 31

years has come to this Court complaining that her daughter and

grandson, aged 5 years, are being illegally detained by the first

respondent herein, who is none other than the husband/father of

the alleged detenues. This petition was filed on 8.7.2009. It was

admitted and notice was ordered on 9.7.2009. The matter stands

posted to this day.

2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged

detenues were produced before the Magistrate and as per the

wishes expressed by the alleged detenue, the daughter of the

petitioner, she and her son were permitted to go along with the

first respondent herein. In these circumstances, the petitioner

does not need or seek any further directions, submits the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the first respondent, who

represents the alleged detenues also submits that the alleged

W.P.(Crl.)No.269/09 -2-

detenue, the first respondent and their child are on their way to

the Court and they have not reached the Court so far. We think,

it is unnecessary to wait for the appearance of the first

respondent and the alleged detenues. As the petitioner does not

want any further relief, we are satisfied that this Writ Petition can

now be dismissed as unnecessary.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits

that the two elder children born to the first respondent and the

alleged detenue are with the petitioner herein and the first

respondent and the alleged detenue intend to take steps to get

custody of those children. Needless to say, the dismissal of this

Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the first

respondent and the alleged detenue to seek appropriate

directions from the appropriate court regarding the custody of the

two elder children who are said to be in the custody of the

petitioner. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the

above observation.

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

dsn