IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22820 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ARIFA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.KUNJI MOYTHU, PANIKKAVEETIL, KANDATTAM KADAVU, PADIYAM VILLAGE.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P. SMT.K.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE ADGP OF PRISONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR.685 001. 4. PROBATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.682 031. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22820/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.7.11. EXT.P2: APPLICATION GIVEN BY PRISONER C.NO.6012 DATED 23/7/11. EXT.P3: APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23/7/11/ EXT.P4: INVITATION CARD OF THE MARRIAGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22820 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed stating that the marriage of the petitioner with one Sri.Shanavas Convict No.6012 confined in Central Prison, Viyyur is scheduled for 4/9/2011. It is stated that the petitioner, prisoner and the petitioner's father had submitted an application dated 23/7/2011 for emergency parole for the prisoner. Orders were not passed and complaining of the above, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit 30 days parole to Sri.Shanavas for his marriage. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the request made for emergency leave under Rule 454 of the Kerala Prisons Rules was inadmissible and therefore, on 25/8/2011, in the presence of the prisoner, the 3rd respondent rejected the application. The reason for such rejection is stated to be mainly that there is no rule for granting leave for the marriage of a prisoner. It is also stated that, in view of Clause (g) of Rule 454 WPC No. 22820/11 :2 : also, the request had to be rejected. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. Clause (g) of Rule 454 to the extent it is relevant reads as under:- “(g) The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for being released on leave, namely:- (i) Offenders classified as habituals; (ii) Prisoners sentenced under Section 392 to 402 Indian Penal Code. Note:- Lifers having concurrent sentence under the above section will be granted parole on completion of the sentence under these sections”. 4. It is the admitted case that the prisoner has been convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for life and for 8 years rigorous imprisonment, which are to run concurrently. In view of Rule 454 (g), a prisoner like Sri.Shanavas can only claim parole on completion of the sentence under Section 394. As at present, he has undergone imprisonment only for 6 years and therefore at this stage, Rule 454(g) renders him ineligible for the leave under the said rule. Now that the rule therefore renders him ineligible, I do not think it necessary to adjudicate on the other submission WPC No. 22820/11 :3 : made by the learned Government Pleader that a prisoner cannot avail of leave for his own marriage. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp