Kerala High Court
Haseena K vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep on 31 August, 2015
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2017/5TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(Crl.).No. 178 of 2017 (S)
-----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
HASEENA K,
AGED 29 YEARS D/O.HAMZAKOYA C N,
KUNDARI HOUSE,KALPENI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHWADEEP-682557.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,KAVARATTI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682555.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682555.
3. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE,
KALPENI POLICE STATION,KALPENI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEEP-682557.
4. MOHAMMED SHAHEED.K.K,
AGED 34 YEARS,S/O.K.K.KASMIKOYA,KUNNAMKULAM HOUSE,
KALPENI ISLAND,UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682557.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEEP
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ
R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA
R4 BY ADV. SMT.UMMUL FIDA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 178 of 2017 (S)
-----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.08.2015 EXECUTED
BEFORE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE,KALPENI POLICE STATION,KALPENI.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 28.10.2015 IN ADALATH
CASE NO:14 OF 2015 BY THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,ANDROTH.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION OF FASKH DATED
17.05.2016,GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE KHAZI OF KALPENI ISLAND
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,ANDROTH.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.5.21017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF KALPENI
POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
SKS P.A TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & A.M.BABU, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(Crl) No. 178 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated 26th day of May, 2017
JUDGMENT
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that her minor child, by name Mohammed Hasan Kausar, aged 5 years, is under the illegal detention of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is the husband of the petitioner and father of the child. The relationship between the parties is strained and they are living separately. The child is admittedly in the custody of the father. It is alleged that, he had taken forcible custody of the child and that the petitioner is not even in a position to ascertain where her child is. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for releasing the child from the alleged illegal detention.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 22.5.2017, the child is produced before the Court today by the fourth respondent. We directed the child to be handed over to the petitioner. She was permitted to spend time with the child till 3'O clock in the evening. According to the petitioner, the child was very happy and comfortable with her. The petitioner seeks the 2 W.P(Crl) No. 178 of 2017 issue of an appropriate direction permitting her to have custody of the child for a period of one month.
3. The learned counsel for the third respondent opposes the grant of custody pointing out that the proper remedy of the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Family Court for necessary orders.
4. Heard. In the nature of the dispute in this case, we have no doubt in our minds that the proper remedy of the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Family Court for appropriate orders regarding custody of the child. The custody of the father of his own child cannot be termed as illegal custody. Since the parents are not on good terms, it is only appropriate that an arrangement for both of them to have custody of the child is worked out through proper proceedings. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Family Court for appropriate orders regarding custody, this writ petition is dismissed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
A.M.BABU
sks/26.5.2017 Judge
3
W.P(Crl) No. 178 of 2017