← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/59/2015closed

P.K.Kunjumon v. State Of Kerala

2015-03-09Honourable Mr. Justice P.D.Rajan,Honourable Mr.Justice V.K.Mohanan12 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(Crl.).No. 59 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------- P.K.KUNJUMON AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PERUMBRAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKADUNGLALOOR ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 102 BY ADVS.SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY RESPONDENT(S):

---------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. SUPERITENDANT OF POLICE (RURAL) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA PIN 683 101.

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE (RURAL) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA PIN 683 101.

4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA PIN 683 101.

5. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

6. MURALI @ SARATH AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FLAT NO.10 REEHA APARTMENTS, MAMPILLIPPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY KOCHI-24

7. ANAND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FLAT NO.10 REEHA APARTMENTS, MAMPILLIPPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY KOCHI-24.

8. SUJATHA AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FLAT NO.10 REEHA APARTMENTS, MAMPILLIPPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY KOCHI-24.

WP(Crl.).No. 59 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------- R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI. P.S. ABDUL KAREEM- GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6-R8 BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID R6-R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI R6-R8 BY ADV. SMT.P.VANDANA R6-R8 BY ADV. SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP R6-R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.REEHA KHADER R6-R8 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.NESNA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(Crl.).No. 59 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------- ET.P1 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03-02-2015 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 03-02-2015 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 03-02-2015 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4 - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 03-02-2015 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------:

NIL.

TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE.

V.K. MOHANAN & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl) No. 59 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

V.K.Mohanan,J.

In terms of our order dated 11.2.2015, the detenue as well as the petitioner and the 7th respondent are appeared before us. The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent handover a copy of the Marriage Certificate dated 7.3.2015 issued from the Marriage Officer, Thrikkakara to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, attested by the 7th respondent. As observed in our order dated 11.2.2015, the marriage between the 7th respondent and the daughter of the petitioner was registered on 7.3.2015, which is now proved and supported by the Marriage Certificate produced. If that be so, it can be

seen that the daughter of the petitioner is not under the illegal confinement of anybody and she is the legally wedded wife of the 7th respondent. Read earlier order dated 11.2.2015 as part of this judgment.

As the daughter of the petitioner is not under the illegal confinement of anybody, no further orders are warranted in this petition and accordingly, the same is closed.

V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

acd

ORDER

V.K.Mohanan,J.

The petitioner, who is the father of one Priya Mary Sebastian, preferred the above writ petition alleging that his daughter is under the illegal confinement of respondents 6 to 8, after her missing from his house, on 30.1.2015. Therefore, it is prayed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other order or direction commanding respondents 2 to 8 to produce the detenue Priya Mary Sebastian, before this Court.

2.

When the above writ petition came up for admission, while issuing notice to R6 to 8, vide order dated

4.2.2015, we directed them to produce the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Priya Mary Sebastian before this Court on this date.

3.

Accordingly, when the case is taken today, the daughter of the petitioner, appeared before us along with respondents 6 to 8. We interacted with her. We have also interacted with the petitioner and his wife, who are the parents of the detenue. We heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8.

4.

During our interaction with Priya Mary Sebastian, she submitted before us that she has already crossed the aged of 24 years and she is a B.Tech Engineering graduate. According to her, herself and 7th respondent were in love and she volunteered to go along

with the 7th respondent and thereafter, the marriage was conducted in Aryasamajam at Vaikkom on 3.2.2015 and thereafter, for the purpose of registering their marriage, a joint application was made by them on 30.1.2015 before the Registrar of Marriage, Thrikkakara. It is also submitted by her that they have registered their marriage in Udayanapuram Grama Panchayat and to substantiate the above fact, she has produced Certificate No.720/2015 dated 3.2.2015 issued by the Local Registrar of Udayanapuram Grama Panchayat. So, according to the detenue, now she is a legally married wife of the 7th respondent and she also wants to go along with him. 5.

When we interacted with the petitioner and his wife, they submitted before us that after missing of their daughter from their house on 30.1.2015, there was no contact with her and though the 6th respondent assured to

produce the detenue before him, she was not produced before him and subsequently it is learnt that the detenue was produced in Court at Palakkad. The parents of the so called detenue expressed their anguish and apprehension that without a valid marriage, it will not be proper to send the girl along with the 7th respondent. So, they insisted for producing any valid document to prove the marriage between their daughter and the 7th respondent. 6.

In the light of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner and his wife, we are of the view that further consideration of the writ petition can be adjourned to a date after one month from the date of the notice allegedly issued on 30.01.2015. So that the 7th respondent and the detenue can produce the marriage certificate, if any, on the basis of the Registration of the marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,

before this Court.

Accordingly, hearing of the writ petition is adjourned to 9.3.2015 and in the meanwhile, the daughter of the petitioner is free to go according to her wish and decision. The 7th respondent is directed to produce the marriage certificate, if any, before this Court with copy to the petitioner, before 9.3.2015. The detenue and the 7th respondent as well as the petitioner, are directed to appear before this court on 9.3.2015.

V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

acd