IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 W.P.(Crl) No. 590 of 2011 (S) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER ----------------- K.K. KABEER, S/O. KAMAL, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLANGARAKANDI HOUSE, CHEMBILODE AMSOM, KOYYODE DESOM, CHEMBILODE VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT (CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION LIMITS) BY ADV.SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS --------------------- 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATTANNUR KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702. 2 FATHIMA RESIDING AT PADIYIL KOYYODAN PARAMBA PALAD PO PATTANNUR PATTANNUR AMSOM PALAD DESOM THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT(MATTANNUR POLICE STATION LIMITS) PIN 670 595. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T. RAMAPRASAD UNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DST WP(Crl).No. 590/2011 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 07.07.2011 IN O.P. NO. 507/2011 EXT. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DST THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(Crl.) No.590 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. Petitioner says that he is the husband of K.Rafeena, who is the respondent in Ext.P1 Writ Petition before the Family Court, Thalassery. Going by that judgment, petitioner sued her for restitution of conjugal rights. That is ordered ex parte on 7.7.2011. We find an allegation made by the petitioner in that proceeding that Rafeena's mother is leading an immoral life and she would persuade the petitioner's wife also to take up that course. When Ext.P1 has been passed ex parte on 7.7.2011, going by the common course of human conduct and regularity of official business of judicial office of the Family Court, Thalassery, we have to assume and presume in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the process from that original petition was duly served from the Family Court on Rafeena. If WPCR.590/11 2 the petitioner wants to execute the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, that is a different matter. We are not persuaded to issue any notice on the premise that Rafeena is under illegal detention of her mother 2nd respondent Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed inlimine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. Krs/23.12