IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 453 of 2010(S)
1. K.P.SUDHEER, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :22/12/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010-S
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier
orders passed by us resting with the order dated 7/12/10.
2. Parties had settled their disputes. They had agreed to
and have already filed a petition under Sec.13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act. We are informed that the terms of the settlement
have been incorporated in the joint petition filed for dissolution
of marriage by mutual consent under Sec.13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no
further orders are necessary in this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that
the alleged detenue has opened an account in the name of the
minor child `Varun Krishna’ and the number of that account has
been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the settlement between the parties, we are
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 2 :-
satisfied that this writ petition can now be dismissed as
unnecessary, We do so.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 3 :-
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
————————————————-
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010-S
————————————————-
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010
ORDER
Basant,J.
Parties have settled their disputes. They have decided to
dissolve the marriage by mutual consent by filing a petition
under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and they have agreed
on stipulations regarding maintenance payable to the child and
custody of the child. The wife has agreed to give up her claims
for maintenance if the marriage is dissolved by mutual consent.
2. Both counsel agree that the parties shall be taking
necessary steps to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage
by mutual consent under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
They pray for time to file the application and thereafter report
settlement of the present dispute before this Court. We do
accordingly give the parties time. Call on 22/12/10.
R. BASANT
(Judge)
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 4 :-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 5 :-
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
————————————————-
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010-S
————————————————-
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010
ORDER
Basant,J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for
issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce
his wife `Lakshmi Ramachandran’ – a young woman aged about
28 years (date of birth – 5/5/1982). She is a B.Sc. M.L.T. degree
holder. The couple have been blessed with a child/son aged less
than 2 years now. According to the petitioner, his wife was
being illegally detained and confined by the 1st respondent – his
mother-in-law. It is, in these circumstances, that he came to this
Court with this petition on 18/11/10.
2. Another Bench admitted the petition on 19/11/10.
Notice was ordered to the respondents.
3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present.
He is represented by his counsel. The first respondent is
present. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with
the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent and the alleged detenue
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 6 :-
are represented by a counsel.
4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with the 1st
respondent, who is allegedly detaining and confining her, we
permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber
with no opportunity for the 1st respondent to influence her. The
alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to speak
to her husband – the petitioner herein.
5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged
detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with her in the
presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the alleged detenue and
the 1st respondent were present.
6. The alleged detenue has stated before us categorically
that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement.
According to her, she does not want to resume cohabitation with
the petitioner. She has narrated her reasons for such decision
of hers. We do not want to state those reasons. We attempted
to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement –
either to re-unite or part as friends. Though immediate success
has not been achieved, both counsel submit that some time may
be granted to the parties to work out an amicable settlement
either way. We also feel that such course will be ideal in the
W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 7 :-
facts and circumstances of this case.
7. We do accordingly post this case to 7/12/10. By that
date, we expect that the parties with the help of their counsel
who, we note, are offering very sublime assistance to the parties,
shall reach an amicable settlement either way. The alleged
detenue is permitted to leave this Court today along with her
mother – the 1st respondent, as desired by her.
8. Call on 7/12/10.
R. BASANT
(Judge)
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/