A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to produce the corpus of the boy.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner had prayed in the criminal writ petition filed to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 4 (The state of Kerala, The Director-General of Police, Circle Inspector of Police, and The Station House Officer) to produce the corpus of the boy, named as T. Amjad aged 4 years who is the son of the petitioner. The prayer was to grant such other relief as deemed fit.
The Petitioner was a Muslim who married a lady. The marriage relationship was subsisting and two children were born in the wedlock of the Petitioner and the lady. Thereafter the Petitioner, aged 50 years, solemnized a second marriage with the 5th Respondent, Mubeena.
Amjad was the child born in the wedlock of the Petitioner and 5th Respondent. The 5th Respondent had eloped with another man named Sudheer and the child was illegally detained at the instance of the 5th Respondent and the Man.
Arguments by the Parties
The Respondents submitted that based on the instructions of the 4th Respondent, the police officials concerned had conducted enquiries in the Petitioner’s case. They had also recorded the statement of the 5th Respondent. The alleged Detainee, T. Amjad was with the 5th respondent. As per the statement of the 5th Respondent, due to extreme marital discord with the Petitioner, she was constrained to go away from the marital home.
She was then residing in the house of her deceased parents. She as a mother had every right to have custody of the minor son and the custody of the child was not illegal. Further, she had stated before the police that she had no objection to the petitioner visiting the child appropriately once a week with a prior appointment.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that the case of illegal detention was not seriously disclosed in this case. If the petitioner had any disputes or issues with the 5th Respondent in regards to the custody of their minor son, it was for him to work out such legally justiciable grievances before the Family court.
Court’s Decision
The Court had held that the 4th Respondent as a one-time measure, might ensure that the petitioner was allowed to interact with the child in the place where the 5th Respondent and the child resided in presence of a woman police official.
The 4th Respondent was directed to make appropriate arrangements after coordinating both the petitioner and the 5th respondent regarding the time and place of the said visit in the presence of a woman police officer.
Thereafter, if the Petitioner had any legally justiciable grievances it was for him to work out his remedies following law and before the appropriate forum like Family Court, etc.
With the above observations and directions, the criminal writ petition was disposed of.
Click here to view full judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
