IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 508 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ SURESH DAMODARAN AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.DAMODARAN, ELAMPADATHU HOUSE, MAHADEVIKADU P.O.,KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA PIN-688001 2. CAPTAIN SALINI SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.V.SUBRAMANIAN,C/O.PRINCIPAL MATRON, MILITARY HOSPITAL, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT, 3. V.SUBRAMANIAN, HOUSE NO.VII/14, INDIAN BANK COLONY, IIND MAIN ROAD, SALAIYUR ROAD, CHENNAI-600073 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN-688001 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No.508 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for trace and produce his minor female child, aged 3 ½ years. 2. The petitioner and the second respondent are spouses. The child has been born in such relationship. The third respondent is the maternal grandfather. The second respondent is employed in the Military Hospital, Gujarat as Principal Matron. The child is left in the custody of the third respondent. The short grievance of the petitioner is that he is denied opportunity for interactions with the child. 2. Even accepting the entire assertions and allegations of the petitioner, we are afraid that we cannot be persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner must move the Family Court for WPCR No.508/2010 2 custody/visitorial rights in respect of the child. We are on the facts of the case unable to find any element of illegal detention or confinement which is essential to persuade us to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may take a long period of time if the petitioner moves the family Court. We are not able to understand the submission. Even if it is true, invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is certainly not the remedy which the petitioner can choose to follow. We need only to observe that the Family Court must alertly perceive the plight of the petitioner and must take appropriate steps expeditiously to redress his genuine grievance, if any. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. 4. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the Family Court, if necessary. R. BASANT (Judge) K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) CSS/