IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 90 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJEEV, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, CHARUKADU, CHEMMAKKADU P.O., PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. NISAR POOKUNJU, S/O.RAHIM, VALLAMKUNNATHU JAYANTHI, CHEMMAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER FOR IST DETENUE GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.90 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J This judgment must be read in continuation of the orders passed earlier by Benches resting with the order dated 08/04/2010. 2. The petitioner had filed this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus complaining that his wife, Saritha.V.R, an adult major woman, aged 34 years, is missing from 25/1/2010 along with his younger son Prageen Rajeev, aged 7 years. It was his apprehension that the alleged detenues were being illegally detained by the 4th respondent. 3. This petition was filed on 12/3/2010. It was admitted on 15/3/2010. 4. The alleged detenues - mother and minor child were traced. We note that arrangements have been made earlier by another Bench by orders dated 07/04/2010 and 08/04/2010. The alleged detenue had stated that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. An affidavit to that effect has been W.P.(Crl).No.90/2010 : 2 : filed by the alleged detenue on 07/04/2010. According to her, she had secured employment at Bharatpur, Rajasthan in King Secondary School, Ranjit Nagar, A block. She gets a monthly salary there with free accommodation and according to her, she was residing there as a free individual. She did not want to resume co-habitation with the petitioner for various reasons. 5. Parties appear to have come to an agreement and terms were agreed upon. Accordingly, the alleged detenue has already left this State to resume employment at Bharatpur. The elder child was with the petitioner; but as agreed between the parties, both children have now been left in the custody of the maternal grandparents of the children. Both children are now students of Government High School Panayam. They are residing with their maternal grandparents and the petitioner, their father is visiting them and is making arrangements for their maintenance. 6. Vijayalakshmi Amma, the mother of the alleged detenue and the maternal grandmother of the children has today come to court with both the children. She submits that she and her husband K.R.Raveendran Nair are keeping custody of both W.P.(Crl).No.90/2010 : 3 : children and are looking after them. The petitioner herein is visiting the children and is also looking after their needs. The maternal grandmother as also the petitioner and his counsel submit that no further directions are necessary, in these circumstances. The alleged detenue is represented by a counsel. We interacted with the petitioner, the mother of the alleged detenue and the two minor children. The minor children appear to be happy in the company of their maternal grandparents with the petitioner visiting them quite often and looking after them. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this writ petition need not be kept pending any longer. As agreed by all concerned, we are satisfied that this writ petition can now be disposed of. 8. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed in part. b) The affidavit of the alleged detenue that she is not under confinement or detention is accepted. c) We record the fact that both minor children are in the custody of their maternal grandparents and the petitioner/their father is maintaining them and visiting them frequently. We W.P.(Crl).No.90/2010 : 4 : direct that the children shall continue in the custody of the maternal grandparents until such custody is modified or altered by orders of competent courts. Any one, who has superior claim for the custody of the children, must certainly approach the Family Court and get that dispute resolved. Till then, the children shall continue in the custody of the maternal grandparents. 9. We record the voluntary submission of the petitioner that he will pay for the maintenance of the children including their educational expenses. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl).No.90/2010 : 5 : W.P.(Crl).No.90/2010 : 6 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009