IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 360 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- AJITHAKUMARI, D/O. RAJAMMA, AGED 43 YEARS, KUDIYATTIL HOUSE, KURAKKANNI DESOM, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SUJATHA.R, D/O. RAJAMMA, AGED 45 YEARS, ROOM No.K-21,JINDAL VIDYANAGAR STEEL LTD TOWNSHIP, PO. VIDYANAGAR, TORANAGALLU, SANDUR TALUK, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA - 583 275 PHONE: 9916829427. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTREAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI, REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.I, KATHRIKKADAVU, P.O. KALOOR, COCHIN. 3. THE DG & IGP, KARNATAKA STATE POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, BANGALORE. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BELLARY DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R2 SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(Crl.).No. 360/2008 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE DETAINEE. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 3.9.08. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(Criminal) No. 360 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. The first respondent along with her husband and the minor child Rahul born in the petitioner is present. When the parties appeared before us, we had the assistance of Smt.Bindu Sreekumar as conciliator. 2. It is submitted that Rahul from his very childhood was being looked after by the first respondent Sujatha and her husband Satheeshchandran. We find that the child also is attached to them. But they admit before this Court that the child is of the petitioner who lost her husband. Petitioner is the younger sister of the first respondent. Apparently, under the penurious circumstance, the petitioner was not in a position to look after her two children and hence the younger one was entrusted with the first respondent. Now master Abhishek the elder child of the petitioner and the petitioner submit that the petitioner is now running a tailoring shop and she is in a position to look after the children. W.P.(Crl) No. 360/08 2 3. The first respondent Sujatha and her husband Satheeshchandran submit that they have no objection in entrusting back the child Rahul to the petitioner. We find that the first respondent and her husband Satheeshchandran have done a great sacrifice in bringing up a child in the difficult days of the petitioner. 4. While recording our appreciation for the great sacrifice undertaken by the first respondent and her husband, we direct them to entrust the child Rahul to the petitioner Ajithakumari. The first respondent submits that in case any transfer certificate is required for the purpose of getting admission for Rahul in the State of Kerala, she will make necessary arrangements for the same. 5. We have already observed above that the first respondent Sujatha and her husband Satheeshchandran have really done a great sacrifice in bringing up a child without any ulterior motive. We have recorded our appreciation also for the sacrifice thus made by Sujatha and Satheeshchandran. They have not received any money from the petitioner for bringing up the child. On the contrary, they have only spent from their own W.P.(Crl) No. 360/08 3 hard-earned income for meeting the educational expenses and other needs of the child. Satheeshchandran submits that in view of the filing of the writ petition, police had called his children to the police station and the police had also gone to the Company where he works. As a matter of fact, it was not necessary for the police in Karnataka to call the parties to the police station as they have not committed any crime. They have only done something good to their best of ability to a poor child. We make it clear that they shall not be harassed in any way. We record our appreciation for the strenuous efforts taken by Smt. Bindu Sreekumar as conciliator. This writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE smp W.P.(Crl) No. 360/08 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. W.P.(Crl.) No. 360 OF 2008 J U D G M E N T 30.10.2008