IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 480 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER ----------------- RADHA E.K., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KASSUMAVINVALAPPIL (H), VELASWARAM, RAVANESWARAM P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.HEMALATHA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671121. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671315. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, HOSDURG - 671314. 5. GIREESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI, VELASWARAM, RAVANESWARAM P.O., CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671316. 6. PRASANTH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VASANTHA, PANGANTHODU, VELASWARAM,RAVANESWARAM P.O., - 671316, CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 7. GIRIJA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT. ALAMIPALLY QUARTERS, P.O.KANHANGAD - 671 315, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 8. GEETHA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANI, VELASWARAM, RAVENESWARAM P.O., CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK - 671316 KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI. GOVIND K BARATHAN R1 TO R4 BY SRI. TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPCR NO. 480 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.02.2011 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT WOMEN'S COMMISSION. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG. EXT.P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.484/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. EXT.P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.487/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. EXT.P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1043/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION DATED 08.10.2011 EXT.P5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.1043/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION DATED 08.10.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL \\TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.480 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner is the mother of the alleged detenue Rehna.E.K.. 2. Read order dated 28.10.2011. 3. The petitioner has not taken steps for issuance of further notice to her husband, who is in Gulf. 4. While the petitioner alleges that her daughter is under the unlawful custody of the 5th respondent Gireesh, it appears that he is a relative of the detenue's father. There are allegations between the parties attributable to the conduct of the petitioner. We had, therefore, by order dated 28.10.2011, directed the alleged detenue to continue with Chellamma, the mother-in-law of Girija, who is the sister of Rehna's father. With this, the petitioner does not appear today. She has not taken steps to bring her husband on records. Obviously, we are not impressed that the writ petition is bona fide. WP(Crl.).No.480/2011 2 5. There is also no reply affidavit contradicting the plea that the 5th respondent Gireesh is suffering from renal ailments. Medical Certificate is also produced. In fact, even in the writ petition, it is the petitioner's case that Gireesh is suffering from certain ailments to his renal system and this is used to emotionally induce the detenue to go with him. We are unable to take the plea of the petitioner on its face value. We find no ground to hold that the alleged detenue is in illegal detention. We, therefore, let her continue to be within the control of her paternal aunt Girija. The detenue shall be housed appropriately by Girija, even with her mother-in-law Chellamma. 6. On pronouncement of the aforesaid, the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents pointed out that, even after the earlier interim order, there is concerted effort to harm the 5th respondent. We direct that Police Officers, having jurisdiction over the area where Gireesh resides and also moves, including respondents 2 to 4, shall ensure that adequate protection is provided for his life, as and when sought for. 7. We further order that if Rehna applies through Girija, as the person with whom she stays in terms of this order, for appropriate WP(Crl.).No.480/2011 3 transfer certificate, the competent authority shall consider it sympathetically and pass appropriate orders, if necessary, by taking appropriate surety affidavit from Girija. If any such authority needs any further clarification in this regard, it can move in this matter for the needed clarification. If no such clarificatory order is needed, the directions contained herein shall be scrupulously adhered to. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/12.12