IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 85 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ANIL NATH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, THAYYIL, PULIYANNOOR P.O., MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 573. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER) POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686 039. 4. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALA-686 575. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA- 686 575. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, PALA- 686 575. 7. GOPALAKRISHNA CHETTIAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN CHETTIAR, CHENGAZHASSERY HOUSE, NEAR KOOVAMBHAGAM, MEVADA, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM- 686 039. 8. SARASAMMAL, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, CHENGAZHASSERY HOUSE, NEAR KOOVAMBHAGAM, MEVADA, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM- 686 039. R1 TO R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU. R7 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPCR 85 OF 2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(CRL) No.85 of 2011-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the Ist day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner alleges illegal detention of his wife by respondents 7 and 8. Respondents 7 and 8 are the parents of his wife. There is a child born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the alleged detenu. 2. Today, we interacted with the alleged detenu and the petitioner. We also interacted with respondents 7 and 8. We also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8. 3. The alleged detenu would say that there is no illegal detention and that she is not inclined to go with the petitioner. As far as the child is concerned it is submitted by the alleged detenu and also by the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 that they are prepared to allow the petitioner to interact with the child in the premises of Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. In such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: i) We leave it open the right of the petitioner to seek remedies in any other forum. ii) In view of the stand of the alleged detenu we hold that there WPCR 85/2011 -2- is no illegal detention. Iii) We direct that the petitioner shall be allowed to interact with his child on all Saturdays except the 2nd Saturday between 10 A.M and 12 Noon for a period of one month and thereafter it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the appropriate forum. iv) The alleged detenu shall produce the child in the premises of Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor as aforesaid on 5.3.2011, 19.3.2011 and 26.3.2011 in terms of this order. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS