IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl) No. 80 of 2007(S)
1. SANILAN K.M, AGED 37,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. RAHIMA MELEKUDASSERY,
5. MUKTHAR, AGED 22,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.S.AMINA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/04/2007
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN & S. SIRI JAGAN, JJ.
………………………………………………………………………..
W.P.(Crl) No. 80 OF 2007
………………………………………………………………………..
Dated this the 17th April, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Siri Jagan, J:
A very difficult situation arises in this case. The petitioner has
approached this court seeking a writ of Habeas corpus stating that he fell
in love with one Smt. Rahima who is a physically handicapped lady and
that she is under wrongful confinement by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 .
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the mother and brother of the said Smt.
Rahima .
2. As directed by this Court, the second respondent has produced
before us the said Smt. Rahima. We had talked with her at length. She
submits that she has no relationship of love with the petitioner and that the
petitioner is only a good friend of hers. She is, to some extent, wrongfully
confined by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the sense that she has been
forced to marry against her wish, a person far elder in age to her having
four children, it is submitted. She would submit that she has no intention to
W.P.(Crl) No. 80 OF 2007
2
continue the marital relationship with the said person and intends to seek
divorce from him, for which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not
permitting her. She wants to get appropriate assistance to get divorce
from her husband as the marriage has been totally against her wishes.
We had occasion to talk to the 5th respondent also, who is the brother of
Smt. Rahima. He admits that Rahima has been married to a person who
had two children at the time of marriage and has now two more children.
The said Smt. Rahima is not in illegal custody, he submits.
3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we
dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:
Since the said Smt. Rahima expressed her desire to go back to her
house as she has nowhere else to go, she would be free to go to her
house. However, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall not in any way detain
her against her wishes. If the said Smt. Rahima wants to get divorce, it
would be open to her to take appropriate proceedings under her personal
law to approach the appropriate court seeking divorce. Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 shall not in any way stand in her way in prosecuting such petition
for divorce. The said Smt. Rahima would be entitled to seek the
assistance of the petitioner or anybody else in getting divorce if she so
wishes. But Smt. Rahima categorically asserts that she does not wish to
go with the petitioner . As a major it would be open to the said Smt.
W.P.(Crl) No. 80 OF 2007
3
Rahima to decide that question according to her wishes. But we make it
clear that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall not in any way prevent Smt.
Rahima from seeking appropriate reliefs from the appropriate court to get
divorce from her husband if she wishes to do so.
With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondents
Nos. 2 and 3 shall see that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 do not stand in the
way of the said Smt. Rahima initiating and prosecuting appropriate steps
for getting divorce from her husband, if she so wishes. If the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 receives any complaint either written or oral from the said
Smt. Rahima or on her behalf, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall enquire
into such complaint and take appropriate action in the matter to enable
the said Smt. Rahima to initiate and prosecute appropriate proceedings
to get divorce from her husband, without interference from respondents or
anybody else.
Sd/-
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE.
lk
/true copy/
P.A. TO JUDGE
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C) No. 8084 of 2004(K)
#1. K. BALAKRISHNAN @ KUTTAN NAIR,
… Petitioner
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
… Respondent
2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE SECRETARY, KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA
! For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR
^ For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
*Coram
The Hon’ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
% Dated :21/03/2007
: O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
————————————
W.P.(C). NO. 8084 OF 2004
————————————-
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to
pay the entire amounts in respect of the works executed by the petitioner.
The stand taken in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent is that the
eligible amounts have already been paid. Therefore, it is for the petitioner in
view of the surviving dispute to pursue the matter before the Civil Court.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that, in the event of
the petitioner approaching the Civil Court, the time taken for prosecuting this
writ petition shall stand excluded.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
smp