Princy vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Princy vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2025

The mother of an 11½ year old son has knocked at the doors of this Court with a plea for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking that her child be freed from the illegal detention of respondents 6 and 7, conceding that they are his father and grandmother.

2. In response to the summons issued by this Court to the respondents, they were before us, along with the child, on 14.08.2025; when we passed the following order, after interacting with them:

2025:KER:65305 WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025 -4- The parties are before us along with the child.

We interacted with the child who initially said he wants to be with the father, but has no reluctance to go with the mother.

Both sides agreed that the child can be with the mother for a few days.

We, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 18.08.2025 and order that the child will be with the mother from this Court until we pass orders on 18.08.2025.

3. Thereafter, on 18.08.2025, the parties were again present before us with the child; and when we talked to the child, a completely different scenario was presented, as is ineluctable from the record of our interaction available in the order of said day, extracted under:

2025:KER:65305 WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025 -5- Read order dated 14.08.2025.

2. The child was again present before us with the parties. Today, the child said that he wants to go with his mother; and in spite of the best effort of the father, refused to change his mind. The child said that he wants to join a school in Kerala, where his two best friends are studying; and that he will meet his father and talk to him without any reluctance.

3. The 6th respondent seemed to be taken aback by the changing circumstances and asserted that the child is tutored by the mother. We, thereupon, allowed the 6th respondent to be with the child for a considerable period of time in our Chambers; and then talked to them again.

The child did not change his mind; but this time he appeared to be more fearful of the father.

4. The mother submitted that she will be able to obtain an admission for her child in the school in question; and offered to place document in substantiation - either in the form of an 2025:KER:65305 WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025 -6- offer letter or admission offer - by the next posting date.

5. List, therefore, on 22.08.2025; until which time, the arrangement ordered in the earlier order dated 14.08.2025 will continue.

6. On 22.08.2025, the parties or the child need not be present.

Needless to say, we allow the father to talk to the child every day, at any time, without any restriction on phone; and we record the undertaking of the mother that she will facilitate this.

4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner - Sri.D.Vimal Dev, pointed out that his client has filed an application to produce Ext.P3 - which is the admission letter from the Government U.P.School, Nadapuram, qua the child; and said that he has already been admitted there.

2025:KER:65305 WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025 -7-

5. Sri.Zubair Pulikkool - learned counsel for the 6th respondent, argued that the reluctance shown by the child, as recorded in our order dated 18.08.2025, is only because of the circumstances; and added that there is an Original Petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Family Court, relating to the custody of the child. He prayed that his client be left with full liberty to defend such and to seek appropriate orders for visitation/interim custody etc. in it.

6. Pertinently, though we asked Sri.Zubair Pulikkool, if his client desires that this Court make an arrangement for him to obtain visitation/interim custody over the 2025:KER:65305 WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025 -8- child, he responded saying the 6th respondent prefers to contest the pending Original Petition before the learned Family Court and obtain orders from there.

7. Be that as it may, when the child has made his preference to be with his mother clear to us - as recorded by us in our afore extracted order, we are left without any other option, but to confirm the same and to leave the parties to invoke other remedies that may be available to them in law.

In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, confirming the interim order afore extracted; but clarifying that the parties will not be fettered or trammeled by any of our observations in this judgment, 2025:KER:65305 WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025 -9- if they are to proceed with legal recourse in future.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

                                   M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv                                     JUDGE
                                           2025:KER:65305
WP(CRL.) NO. 1030 OF 2025

                            -10-

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1030/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 6TH RESPONDENT HEREIN AND THE PETITIONER, DATED 27.07.2021 EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P. NO. 756/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA, EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM ISSUED FROM THE GOVERNMENT U.P SCHOOL, NADAPURAM DATED 20.08.205

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court