IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 205 of 2008(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUBRAMANYA REYYA, L.S.A., PERSONAL NO. 128742 - Y, INDIAN NAVY, KOCHI -4. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SRI.M.T.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH STATE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPURAM POLICE STATION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.,ANDRAPRADESH. 3. SRI. K. VALLABHA RAO, V.V.R. PURAM, HARIPURAM POST, SRIKAKULAM, ANDRA PRDESH. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.PUSHPALATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.205 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. Petitioner alleges that his wife is under the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent father. According to the petitioner, after the marriage, he alone came to Kerala, but his wife did not accompany him. Later, the 3rd respondent-father sometimes in April visited the petitioner's house at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to send his wife back to Kochi; but she was not sent. It is suspected that she is under the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent. From the narration of the fact stated in the writ petition it would clearly show that his wife, after the marriage, has not come to Kerala. At any rate, the petitioner has no case that his wife was possibly taken from Kerala. The fact that she did not come to Kerala either her return to Hyderabad on an earlier occasion or at an early date, does not mean that the cause of action had arisen in any part of Kerala. As such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the question. In this connection, we may refer to an un-reported decision of the Madras High Court wherein the -2- WP(Crl).No.205/2008 question regarding the jurisdiction was considered. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court at least a fraction of the cause of action is arising within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India (( 2006)6 SCC 2007) the Apex Court held as follows: "6. Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It reads as follows: 226(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either, been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof." 2. In Alchemist Limited and another v. State Bank of Sikkim and others (AIR 2007 SC 1812) the Apex Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution as it originally enacted had two-fold limitations on the -3- WP(Crl).No.205/2008 jurisdiction of High Courts with regard to their territorial jurisdiction. Firstly, the power could be exercised by the High Court " through out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", i.e. the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be "within those territories, which clearly implied that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. 3. Following the above two decisions, it has to be held that there are two fold limitations; firstly the power is to be exercised through out territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, that is to say the writs issued by the court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories, which clearly implied that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. Keeping those principles in mind it has to be held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach an -4- WP(Crl).No.205/2008 appropriate court for consideration of his grievance, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.