IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 75 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAMESKUTTY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 43, VAZHUPARAMBIL, MAMMOODU P.O.,KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,WYNAD. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKODI- THANAM POLICE STATION, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. KUNCHACKO ALIAS JACOB, PUZHIPURATH HOUSE PAYYAMPALLY P.O., THANNIKKAL MANANTHAVADY. WYNAD. 5. KATHREENA, W/O.KUNCHACKO -DO-. 6. JOHN JACOB, S/O. KUNCHACKO, -DO- R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(Crl.)No.75 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner seeks redressal in relation to his minor children who are admittedly in the company of his wife Sheela. The petitioner attributes her parents and brother of having illegally detained them. The petitioner was in Dubai. According to him, his wife went to her house at Mananthavady with the children. Thereafter, the petitioner visited them on 7.1.2010. Though his wife and children are there in the house, respondents 4 to 6 did not allow him to meet them and respondents 4 and 6 pushed him out of the house, it is alleged. Now he says that at least he is entitled to see his children. The petitioner comes from Kottayam district. The WPCR75/10 -: 2 :- wife is stated to be in Wayanad district. The questions relating to visitorial rights, restitution of conjugal rights and even custody issues can be raised before the competent family courts which are better equipped to deal with family issues, including by referring to conciliation and mediation. Beyond that is the fact that the criminal courts in the competent jurisdiction have also not been appropriately moved. At any rate, there is no situation of man-missing or illegal detention. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to other remedies. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/