High Court Kerala High Court

Mathew Thomas vs Secretary To Govt. Of India on 22 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mathew Thomas vs Secretary To Govt. Of India on 22 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 258 of 2008(S)


1. MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.V.T.MATHEW, AGED 41
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COUNSEL GENERAL OF INDIA,

3. THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF INDIA,

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-03.

5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

6. SHEEJA @ SHEEJA VARGHESE INCHODY,

7. VARGHESE, S/O.JOSEPH, INCHODY HOUSE,

8. TRESA VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE, INCHODY

9. SUB INSPECTOR, PEECHI POLICE STATION,

10. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :22/07/2008

 O R D E R
                             P.R. RAMAN &
                   T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                        W.P.(CRL) NO. 258/2008
                       = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

            DATED THIS, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2008.

                             J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus

directing Respondents 1 to 4, 9 and 10 to search and produce petitioner’s

minor son Joel Thomas before this Court. Admittedly, petitioner’s marriage

with the 6th respondent got strained. The custody of his minor son Joel

Thomas is pending consideration before the Family Court, Thrissur. The

Family Court gave interim custody of the child to the petitioner which was

challenged by the 6th respondent mother before this Court by filing W.P.

(C) 16440/2005 and as per judgment dated 23.6.2005, the order of the

Family court giving interim custody of the child to the petitioner was set

aside and the custody of the child was given to the mother. It is stated that

pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the main matter was closed thereby giving

permanent custody of the child to the 6th respondent mother. If so, custody

of the child with the mother cannot be said to be in any way, illegal. So

long as Ext.P2 stands, no relief as sought for in the writ petition can be

WP(CRL) 258/2008 :2:

granted.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order of the Family Court or this

Court, he can work out his remedies in accordance with law. Leaving open

such right of the petitioner, this writ petition is closed.

P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE)

knc/-