IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 256 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHYLAJA, W/O LATE SHAJAHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, ELINJIPRA.P.O, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI STATION, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V. SHAMSU, C/O. HASEENA SALIM, S/O. BAVA, AGED 65 YEARS, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, KALVATHY, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL, KUNNUMPURAM.P.O, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NOORJAHAN, W/O.K.V. SHAMSU, AGED 60 YEARS, KARUPPAMVEETIL HOUSE, KALVATHY, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL, KUNNUMPURAM.P.O, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(Criminal) No.256 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 26th May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking a “writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to produce the body of minor child 'Mohammed Nadil' aged 13 years before this Hon'ble Court from the illegal detention of 2nd and 3rd respondents”. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows : Petitioner is the widow of late Shajahan, son of respondents 2 and 3. Four children were born in that wedlock. The alleged detenu is the second son. Petitioner's husband expired on 25.2.2005. The petitioner is at present living in Chalakkudy. It is stated that the petitioner came to know that respondents 2 and 3 and their daughters and son are treating the minor child as a servant to do the household chores, such as cleaning of the house, bathroom etc. and he is sent for shopping regularly. W.P.(Crl) 256/11 2 The alleged detenu is 13 years old. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P1 complaint. It is also stated that the petitioner and other children are not allowed to meet the alleged detenu or to contact him over phone. 3. Today, the alleged detenu was produced. The petitioner and 2nd respondent were also present. We interacted with the alleged detenu and the second respondent. We also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. When we interacted with the alleged detenu, we got the impression that the boy is happy being with the paternal grand parents. He also says that he would like to continue with the paternal grand parents. From the very early childhood, the detenu has been residing in the house of the paternal grand parents. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner shifted out in the year 2005. 5. We do not think that the petitioner has made out W.P.(Crl) 256/11 3 the case of any illegal detention as such. The paternal grandfather, who is present before us would say that he has no objection in the petitioner or her other children coming and seeing the alleged detenu at his place. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the alleged detenu may be sent with the petitioner/mother for a few days prior to the re-opening of the school. The second respondent said that he has no objection in the alleged detenu being sent with the petitioner today itself, and being with the petitioner for a few days. 7. In such circumstances, we permit the petitioner to keep the custody of the detenu till 30.5.2011. The detenu will accompany the petitioner today itself. The petitioner will give back custody of the minor child to the second respondent on 30.5.2011 at 11 a.m. at his residence. We make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Family Court, seeking custody of the child, if she is so advised. W.P.(Crl) 256/11 4 We further make it clear that we are not pronouncing anything about the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents 2 and 3 or other relatives. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.