← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/130/2015disposed of

K.V.Paily v. Commissioner Of Police

2015-04-07Honourable Mr.Justice K.T.Sankaran6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/17TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No.130 of 2015 (B) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

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

1. K.V.PAILY, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE, KADAYAPARAMBU BOAT JETTY ROAD CHANDY ROAD(NEAR), HOUSE NO.96, VADUTHALA KOCHI.

2. ELIZABETH SEBASTIAN, AGED 67 YEARS W/O.SEBASTIAN, 76, BALASUBRAMANIAN ROAD, K.K.PUDUR COIMBATORE-641038.

BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

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

1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY-682031.

2. JESSY VINCENT, KADYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, 5TH LANE KALOOR-KADAVANTHARA ROAD, NEAR KALOOR BUS STAND KOCHI-682017.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, ADV. COMMISSIONER THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

K. T. SANKARAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for producing the body of Zara Paappu who is residing along with the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. The petitioners and the second respondent are present. The alleged detenue is also present. We have interacted with all of them. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court has filed a report in which it is stated that the alleged detenue has been residing in the house in which now she is residing for the last 68 years. She went

-2there at the age of eight years. Now she wants to shift her residence from there. The report does not say that the alleged detenue is under the illegal custody of the second respondent. The Commissioner's Report shows that the mother-in-law of the second respondent died last year and the alleged detenue wanted to continue to reside there till her first death anniversary. Now she wants to go along with the second petitioner.

4. The first petitioner is the half brother and the second petitioner is a close relative of the alleged detenue. The second petitioner submits that she is residing permanently at Coimbatore along with her husband who is a retired bank officer. Both of them are very much interested in the welfare of the alleged detenue. They are willing to take the alleged detenue to their house at Coimbatore.

5. The alleged detenue informed us that she wants to go along with the second petitioner and to live with her at Coimbatore. The second respondent stated that she has no objection in taking the alleged detenue to Coimbatore by

-3the second petitioner. But, she expressed her concern about the alleged detenue as she was living along with her family for the last 68 years at their residence.

6. The second respondent also informed us that her mother-in-law who only brought the alleged detenue to their house 68 years back had left a will in which two cents of property that situates at Kaloor is set apart for the alleged detenue. She is not interested in that property. The petitioners also expressed their view that they are also not interested in that property.

7. After interacting with the parties, we are of the considered view that the alleged detenue can be permitted to go with the second petitioner for living along with her and her family at Coimbatore. We make it clear that the petitioners or the second respondent shall not take any steps for transferring the property of the alleged detenue situates at Kaloor. The alleged detenue, in fact, informed us that she does not know whether she owns that property. She further informed us that even if she owns any property, she

-4does not want to transfer that property during her life time. Be that as it may.

In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the alleged detenue to go with the second petitioner to Coimbatore. We record the undertaking made by the second petitioner and her husband before us that they would look after the alleged detenue with love and care. We also record the fact that the alleged detenue and the second respondent shook their hands showing their love for each other. No further orders are required in this Writ Petition. Therefore, it is disposed of as above.

Sd/- K. T. SANKARAN JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

-5-