IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 322 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JULIE MOHAN, W/O.SUNIL JOY, MADAMPATH, KANDASSAMKADAVU, THRISSUR-13. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SMT.PREEJA P VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKADU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASERWADLY POLICE STATION, THANE WEST -400 607. 4. SUNIL JOY, S/O.ABRAHAM JOY, FLAT NO.103, SHRUSHTY COMPLEX, HIRANANDANI ESTATE, THANE WEST, MAHARASHTRA STATE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.322 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her minor male child Sovin Sunil, aged 2½ years, who was allegedly taken away by force by the 4th respondent, the father of the child. This petition was filed on 10th August, 2009. it was admitted on 11.8.2009. The case was posted initially to 21.8.2009 and then to this date. 2. Today, when the case was called, the petitioner and her counsel are present. The 4th respondent is present in person. He is not represented by any counsel. The learned Government Pleader asserts that the alleged detenue- the minor child and the 4th respondent were traced and the child is now in the custody of the petitioner. 3. We have interacted with the 4th respondent in Court. The 4th respondent accepts that the child can be handed over to the mother of the child and he has no objection in the mother keeping custody of the child. According to him he received the notice late W.P.(Crl.)322/09 -2- and as he could not secure tickets he had to come to Kochi by road and that was the reasons for the delay in his appearing before Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the child has been handed over to the petitioner by the 4th respondent now, the petitioner does not seek any further directions. The 4th respondent in person states specifically before us that he has no objection in the petitioner/mother/his wife keeping the custody of the child. 5. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that no further directions deserve to be issued in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, as agreed by the 4th respondent, is permitted to keep the minor child in her custody. This, we make it clear, shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties to seek appropriate reliefs from the appropriate fora. 6. This Writ Petition is allowed in part with the above observation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn