IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 382 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SATHEESH, S/O.THANKAN KATTUVILA ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KANDALA, MARANALLOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. RAJEEV, S/O.SOMAN, RAJ BHAVAN VENGAPOTTA, MANAPPALAM, KAZHAVOOR, KANJIRAMKULAM PO, 695 001. 4. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.KARMACHANDRAN, CHEMPAKA VILASOM, PAPPARAPPERI, KALLIYOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 5. S.V.ANAND, S/O.S.SUSEELAN NAIR SIVAPARAMAM SADANAM, KUNDAMAN BHAGAM, VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI T. RAMAPRASAD R4 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.S.D.ASOKAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.J.S. AJITHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SKV WP(Crl.).No. 382 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.586/2011 PREPARED BY S.I. OF POLICE, VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS DATED 15.07.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE SKV THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.). No.382 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner is the husband of Reshmi. They have two children. The younger son and Reshmi were reportedly missing. The petitioner alleged that Reshmi has some affair with the third respondent. In spite of repeated postings, they did not appear. Ultimately, the police has traced out Reshmi and the third respondent. They are present. 2. We have seen the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, the alleged accomplice to the illegal actions of the third respondent. We do not express anything on the merits of the allegations in the counter affidavit. 3. We interacted with Reshmi. She says that for about five months, she lives with the third respondent, Rajeev. She also says that Rajeev has a wife living and a child. Matrimonial tie between Rajeev and wife is still in tact. Reshmi expressed her desire to go with her mother, Ramani. 4. Seeing that Reshmi has no authority whatsoever to W.P.(Crl.) 382/11 2 unauthorisedly remove the son Rahul for herself, to the exclusion of its father, the petitioner, we left the child to be in the companionship of the father. We saw the father and the son interacted before lunch. We let them go out for lunch and to report back. We are satisfied that the emotional relationship between the petitioner and his son is cordial and cohesive. 5. We interacted with Ramani, the mother of Reshmi. She says that she did not know much about her daughter's relationship with Rajeev. She also says that she will not let Reshmi to go with Rajeev and will take Reshmi with her. She, however, has some allegations against the petitioner and his relatives. 6. Thereafter, we interacted with the third respondent, Rajeev. We see good contradiction between the statements of Rajeev and Reshmi's mother Ramani. Rajeev says that he has full support of Ramani for a marriage with Reshmi. 7. With the aforesaid, we would recall Reshmi telling us that while in Chennai with Rajeev, she had held out son Rahul, born to her and the petitioner, as Rajeev's son. According to her, that was to create a public impression that there is a matrimonial basis for her cohabitation with and Rajeev. 8. We see that Reshmi is well oriented and she is not under W.P.(Crl.) 382/11 3 illegal detention. We direct that Reshmi will give the child to the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner will take care of it appropriately. We record the statement of the petitioner that he is totally averse to the mother- in-law Ramani seeing the child since according to him, it is she who created the whole situation. He is further open to permit Reshmi to see the children. We record the submission without prejudice to the parties seeking appropriate remedy from the Family Court. Ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc W.P.(Crl.) 382/11 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(Crl.) 382/11 5