IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 210 of 2007(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CANDACE ELIZABETH REBEIRO, W/O. MANOJ ANSLEM REBEIRO, T.C. 26/2068-1.TUTORS LANE, TRIVANDRUM-1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI. K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MR. MANOK ANSLEM REBEIRO, T.C.34/895, VALIYATHOPE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. JESSY ANSLEM, T.C.34/895, VALIYATHOPE, TRIVANDRUM. R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE R1 & R2 BY SRI P.V.THAMPI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(CRL).No.210/2007 APPENDIX --------- PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE; IN O.P.NO.718/2006 DTD. 26/6/2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/76/06 IN W.P.(CRL).NOL.167/06. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/8/2006 IN SPL.TO APPEAL (CRL)NO.3763/06. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 5/2/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.721/2007. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 4/9/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.357/2007/CUM/F.I. STATEMENT DATED 13/9/2007 ON THE FILE OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION. P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.210 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. After much effort on the part of the police, the alleged detenue, the petitioner's child, aged 4 years, was traced out from Goa and the child was produced before us by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram accompanied by two woman Police Constables. Petitioner-mother is present. On an interaction with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, we gather that the information regarding the whereabouts of the alleged detenue at Goa was received from the father of the 3rd respondent and it is based on such information that the Police proceeded to Goa. The child was produced before the Magistrate's Court at Goa and thereafter obtained a transit warrant. 2. There is already a decree passed by the Family Court (Ext.P1 (3)) produced in this case, as per which the petitioner herein, who was the respondent in that proceedings, was appointed as a guardian of the minor child and she is also given permanent custody of the child and -2- WP(Crl).No.210/2007 the 3rd respondent was given only visitorial rights. As per that order, the petitioner has to handover the child to the 3rd respondent on every first and third Saturdays at the office of the Family Court and the child has to be returned by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner herein at 5p.m. on the very same day. It is alleged that the child was not handed over to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent and he took away the child, which necessitated the filing of a complaint before the Police and thereafter this habeas corpus writ petition. 3. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the Family Court's order and considering the age of the child, the petitioner is given the custody of the minor child. 4. The Director General of Prosecution Sri P.G. Thampi personally appeared in this case and submitted that there was no laches on the part of the Police in the matter of investigation by the Police. On the other hand, the Police has done their best to search and find out the alleged detenue and it is only because of the fact that the alleged detenue was kept outside the State and which information could not be obtained earlier, that there was a delay. Writ Petition is closed. -3- WP(Crl).No.210/2007 A copy of this judgment may be handed over to the Director General of Prosecution and a copy may be issued to the petitioner and the respondents on usual terms. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv. -4- WP(Crl).No.210/2007 o r d e r The mother of the child, who is the petitioner herein, complains that the 3rd respondent, her husband, in violation of the order passed by the Family Court, has not produced the child. In this writ petition notice by special messenger was ordered as early as on 17/9/2007. We also issued a direction to the 3rd respondent to produce the child. A statement was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police. We have gone through the said report and found that the details as to whether photographs of the child was published in the print media and also through the visual media are not stated. In spite of the order of the court, when the schild is not returned by the party, naturally it increases the anxiety of the petitioner. The 4th respondent has also preferred a complaint before the Police regarding the missing of his son, the 3rd respondent and an F.I. R. is also registered. In the above circumstances, we direct the Ist respondent-Commissioner of Police, to over see the investigation and if necessary to entrust the same with the higher authority. A detailed report shall also be filed by the lst respondent regarding the direction issued in this regard. Post after ten days. -5- WP(Crl).No.210/2007 P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.