IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 36 of 2009(S)
1. BINU VARGHESE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS HOME
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. S.I. OF POLICE, POLICE STATION,
5. T.I.VARGHESE, THAYYIL HOUSE,
6. T.I.BABU, DO.DO.
7. GRACEAMMA BABU, W/O.T.I.BABU, DO.DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :09/02/2009
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(Crl)No.36 OF 2009-S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J:
Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that his
mother Smt. Leelamma Varghese has been in illegal detention of
respondent Nos. 5 to7. It is on record that the petitioner had
been looking after his mother ever since she came back from
Dubai where she was employed. But, according to the
petitioner, on May 25, 2008, “respondents 5 to 7 and their
associates had forcibly removed the petitioner’s mother from
his home against her wish to an undisclosed location and
from that day onwards, the petitioner’s mother is under the
illegal detention of respondents 5 to 7”. It is further alleged
in the writ petition that he had approached the Vicar of the
local church and also had sought assistance of the police in
tracing out his mother.
2. Smt. Leelamma Varghese is present in court. She
submits that she has not been under any kind of illegal
2
WPCrl.NO.36/09
confinement or detention as alleged in the writ petition.
According to her, she had been living with her brother and his
family at Chengannur. She further asserts that all along she
had been in the care and custody of her brother and his
family. She further stated before us that she had gone to
Chengannur on her own free will in an auto rickshaw. She
had some tiff with her son at that time and because of that
reason she had left his company. In the course of our
interaction with Smt. Leelamma Varghese, she stated before us
that she is now prepared to go with her son. The above
submission is recorded. She is free to live with her son, if she
chooses to do so.
3. Admittedly Smt. Leelamma Varghese had left the
company of the petitioner in May, 2008. But, this writ petition
has been filed in January, 2009 alleging that respondent
Nos.5 to 7,who are none other than his uncles and aunt, had
illegally detained his mother against her wish after removing
her forcibly from his custody. Petitioner goes on to state
further that his mother had been detained in an undisclosed
location ever since May, 2008. The above allegations made in
3
WPCrl.NO.36/09
the writ petition are undoubtedly too far fetched and totally
unbelievable, to say the least. In that view of the matter, we
are satisfied that the petitioner has to be mulcted with costs.
Petitioner shall pay Rs.1,000/= each to respondents 5 to 7,
who shall be entitled to execute the order and recover the
same from the petitioner, if he does not pay the same within
one month from today.
(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE).
cl
4
WPCrl.NO.36/09