Detaining under no valid grounds amounts to wrongful confinement: Kerala High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA MONDAY THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 3RD PHALGUNA 1942 WP(Crl.).No.59 OF 2021 THAHIRA I. AGED 39 YEARS W O. SAKKIR NILAVU NAGARUKUZHI PALAMKONAM P.O. NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 607 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAR STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI 31 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEFUNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA 695 033 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION SH1 VENJARAMMOODU KERALA 695 607 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION SH54 AREEKARA VELLAMUNDA VAYANAD KERALA 670 731 HASHIM S O.USMAN ODAN ODAN HOUSE KELLOORPORUNNANNOOR VAYANAD DISTRICT KERALA 673 592 VELLAMUNDA P.S LIMIT SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS WRIT PETITIONHAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.02.2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING WP(Crl.).No.59 OF 2021 Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021 K. Vinod Chandran J Petitioner is before this Court alleging that her daughter aged 19 years the detenue is under the wrongful confinement of the 5th respondent. It is also submitted before Court that the daughter of the petitioner had been duped and she had proceeded with the 5th respondent on his promise of marrying her. It was submitted that the 5th respondent is already married and has two children 2. We directed the police to procure the custody of the alleged detenue and produce her before us. Today the detenue is before us. We have interacted with her in our chambers. She told us categorically that though she had gone with the 5th respondent it was on the promise that he will marry her. In fact there was misrepresentation with respect to the earlier marriage since the 5th respondent had told her that he was already divorced. The detenue has also submitted before us that she had physical relationship with the 5th respondent which consent was only on the promise of his marrying her and on the information that he was already divorced. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the daughter of the petitioner had appeared before the 3rd respondent Station House Officer along with the 5th respondent. Before WP(Crl.).No.59 OF 2021 production before this Court she was produced on the digital platform before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Nedumangad. Before the Magistrate she had submitted that she had gone with the 5th respondent on her own free will. However only later she came to know that the 5th respondent had not divorced his earlier wife and still the marriage subsists. It was in such circumstances that the daughter of the petitioner has expressed her desire to go with her mother. 4. The mother petitioner also is present before us and the daughter of the petitioner is allowed to go with her mother. The police would first produce her before the Station House Officer the 3rd respondent who shall record her First Information Statement and from there she shall be sent for medical examination and further steps taken in accordance with law The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction allowing the daughter of the petitioner the detenue to go along with the petitioner Sd K.VINOD CHANDRAN Sd M.R. ANITHA JUDGE JUDGE P.A. To Judge WP(Crl.).No.59 OF 2021 PETITIONER S S EXHIBITS TRUE COPY OF THE PART OF AADHAAR CARD OF THE DETENU DATED 21.07.2012 BY THE TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.246 2021 VENJARAMOOD POLICE STATION DATED

Summary: Detaining a person, with no valid grounds against him/her for being in custody, is wrongful confinement. The detenue must be released by the order of the court. This principle was upheld by the Kerala High Court presided by J. K. VINOD CHANDRAN &amp; J. M.R. ANITHA in the case of Thahira I. vs State of Kerala [WP(Crl.).No.59 OF 2021]. In the present case, Petitioner is alleged that her daughter aged 19 years, the detenue, is under the wrongful confinement of the respondent. It was also submitted before Court that the daughter of the petitioner had been duped and she had proceeded with the respondent on his promise of marrying her. It was submitted that the respondent was already married and had two children. The detenue stated categorically that though she had gone with the respondent, it was on the promise that he will marry her. In fact there was misrepresentation with respect to the earlier marriage, since the respondent had told her that he was already divorced. The detenue has also submitted that she had physical relationship with the respondent, which consent was only on the promise of his marrying her and on the information that he was already divorced. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the daughter of the petitioner had appeared before the, Station House Officer, along with the respondent. Before production before this Court, she was produced on the digital platform before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad. Before the Magistrate she had submitted that she had gone with the respondent on her own free will. However, later she came to know that the respondent had not divorced his earlier wife and still the marriage subsisted. It was in such circumstances that the daughter of the petitioner has expressed her desire to go with her mother.