Praveen.T v. Child Welfare Committee, Trivandrum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 501 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- PRAVEEN.T., AGED 27 YEARS S/O THOMAS, RESIDING AT KARIKATHIKUZHI, KANNERU VEEDU, PANAVILA, MULLOOR PO, VIZHINJAM TRIVANDRUM BY ADVS.SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.C.K.SAJEEV SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SRI.M.T.AJITH RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, GOVERNMENT CHILDRENS' HOME POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM-695 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, FR. JAMES JOYE S.J
2. NIRBHAYA KENDRA, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 521 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SREELEKHA PARAMESWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VS
WP(Crl.).No. 501 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 1/9/15 EXT.P2:
TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER DT. 2/9/15 EXT.P3:
TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1207/15 BY THE POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ---------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS
C.K.ABDUL REHIM & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
The petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of a girl named Ms.Vichithra and to set her at liberty, based on an allegation that she is the wife of the petitioner and that she is being illegally detained by respondents 1 and 2.
2. Averments are to the effect that a marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Ms.Vichithra (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') on 28.07.2015 and they were living together as husband and wife. While so, on 04.08.2015 she was directed to be produced before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent had ordered to accommodate the alleged detenue at Mahila
-2Mandir, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram and subsequently she was transferred to Nirbhaya Centre, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram. During her stay at the said centre, it was revealed that she is pregnant. It is also considered that based on a direction issued by the first respondent a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Poojappura Police Station, which was subsequently transferred to Vizhinjam Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 376 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act along with provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Contention of the petitioner is that no offence under Sections 375 and 376 will lie against him. It is also contended that the respondents 1 and 2 has no power to detain the alleged detenue, against her free will. According to the petitioner he was looking after the alleged detenue and taking care of her under proper protection and love. Since the alleged detenue is now kept under detention against her free will, the same will amount to an illegal
-3detention, is the contention raised.
3. Admittedly, the alleged detenue is taken custody by the first respondent in exercise of power vested under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. When the said authority had exercised powers vested under the above said act and kept the alleged detenue under care and protection in the second respondent, this Court cannot find that the custody is in any manner illegal. If the petitioner has got a case that the alleged detenue is not a person upon whom the first respondent cannot exercise any authority or if he has got a case that the petitioner is the proper person with whom custody of the alleged detenue can be entrusted on the basis that he will look after the welfare of the alleged detenue, it is for the petitioner to approach the first respondent in appropriate proceedings. Necessarily if such an application is received, it is for the first respondent to consider the same and to take a appropriate decision.
4. Therefore the above writ petition filed without
-4taking recourse to remedies as above mentioned, cannot be entertained, especially when this Court cannot hold that the alleged detenue is under illegal detention under the respondents 1 and 2.
Hence the writ petition is dismissed, subject to liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the first respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE vs