← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/382/2015dismissed

Ebin Eldhose v. State Of Kerala

2015-09-14Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/23RD BHADRA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 382 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ EBIN ELDHOSE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.P.M. ELDHOSE, PARAMBATH HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPALLY NIRAPPU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673.

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.MATHEWS RAJU SRI.R.LAIJU SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SALIH RESPONDENTS:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. SUB INSPECTOROF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM - 683 106.

3. JOSE (INITIAL UNKNOWN) VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPALLY, NIRAPPU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673.

4. MOLY JOSE, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPALLY, NIRAPPU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 673.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. EGGY N. ELIAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMG

WP(Crl.).No. 382 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE ST. MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, KARAKKUNNAM.

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21/08/2015.

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOLEDGMENT RECEIPT NO. PETITION NO. 12296/2015 DATED 21/08/2015.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL True copy P.A. To Judge AMG

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

& MARY JOSEPH, J.

------------------------------------------------- W.P (Crl.) No. 382 OF 2015 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

J U D G M E N T

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J:

This writ petition is filed based on an allegation that the petitioner's wife, Mrs. Sinat Jose is illegally detained by respondents 3 & 4, who are her parents. It is stated in the writ petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue was solemnised on 18-01-2015, as per religious rites and ceremonies. The petitioner is working in Bahrain and the alleged detenue was employed as a Nurse in Hydrabad. It is alleged that respondents 3 & 4 compelled the alleged detenue to leave the company of the petitioner and to reside with them after a week of their marriage. The petitioner left to Bahrain on 05-03-2015 to rejoin duty, on completion of his leave period. The alleged detenue left to Hydrabad on 07-03-2015. It is admitted that there occurred slight frictions between the petitioner's parents and the

-2alleged detenue regarding mortgage of her ornaments. Thereafter the dispute became worse resulting in the alleged detenue abusing the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about such development only after his return from Gulf. It is stated that, the petitioner came to know that parents of the alledge detenue are not permitting her to interact with the petitioner. When the petitioner came back on leave he again tried to contact the alleged detenue. But the 3rd respondent had abused him over telephone and informed that he is desirous of getting divorce of his daughter. It is stated that, on 11-08-2015 the matter was brought to notice of the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha through a complaint. The respondents 3 and 4 expressed their desire to get a divorce.

But the detenue held the hand of the petitioner and weeped and hugged the petitioner, despite the 3rd respondent shouted and threatened her. The petitioner has not seen the detenue since then. He could not have any access to her.

-3attempts through submitting complaints before the police authorities at Muvattupuzha. It is based on the specific allegation that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement of respondents 3 & 4 against her free will, this petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the alleged detenue and to set her at liberty.

2.

When the case came up for admission on 07-092015 this court directed the 2nd respondent to get an independent statement of the alleged detenue recorded through a woman police officer deputed for the said purpose. Such statement was directed to be recorded not in the presence of any of the family members of respondents 3 & 4.

3.

Today, when the case is taken up, the learned Government Pleader had produced a statement of the alleged detenue recorded as directed by this court, along with a report submitted by the 2nd respondent. It is mentioned in the report of the 2nd respondent that the alleged detenue, Mrs. Sinat Jose had left the family of the

-4petitioner due to some difference of opinion in the matrimonial home. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the police for redressal of his grievance. But inspite of all earnest efforts taken, no reconciliation or reunion could be possible and the alleged detenue went along with her parents.

4.

In the statement recorded from the alleged detenue it is mentioned that, the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue was solemnized on 18-10-2015 and it was an arranged marriage fixed between the two family members. According to her, on the 4th day after the marriage there arose some dispute in the house of the petitioner on the basis of some allegations raised by the family members of the petitioner. Thereafter there were exchange of words between the family members of the spouses. It is stated that she went to Hydrabad on 02-022015 after entrusting her ornaments with the mother of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner went to Gulf. On 15-062015 she returned from Hydrabad and went to the petitioner's house. But it was realized that the gold

-5ornaments were pledged by the parents of the petitioner. They have promised to get the ornaments redeemed within a period of one month. But they failed to do so. Therefore a complaint was submitted before the police authorities. But since the petitioner was not available, no decision could be taken on the basis of such complaint. Thereafter the alleged detenue went to the house of her parents and resided therein. After sometime she left to Delhi on 18-08-2015 to join her sister to seek employment in a hospital therein. Since then she continued in Delhi under an employment. It is only on 13-09-2015 she returned from there. It is specifically mentioned in the statement that she is not under any illegal confinement of the family members or anybody else. According to her she went to Delhi on her own will, in search of an employment.

5.

From the facts as mentioned above it is evident that there exists matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. Since it is brought out from the statement that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement against her free will, this court is

-6not in a position to interfere in the matter by invoking powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing any writ of Habeas Corpus. It will be left open to the parties to the marriage to redress their grievance if any regarding the matrimonial disputes, before the appropriate court/forum. Having found that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Therefore writ petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty of the parties to the marriage to seek appropriate remedy with respect to matrimonial disputes. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.

AMG True copy P.A. to Judge