T. A. Haseena v Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam and others
Kerala High Court
1 October 2012
W.P.(Cr.). No. 477 of 2012
The Judgment was delivered by : C. Pius Kuriakose, J.
1. This writ petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Haseena, mother of a minor child by name Namsad seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the body of Namsad, who, she alleges, is presently illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4. The 3rd respondent is the father of the minor child and 4th respondent is the brother of the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 26.09.2012, respondent nos. 3 and 4 brought Namsad to this Court today.
2. We interacted with the 3rd respondent as well as with the petitioner, Haseena. According to the 3rd respondent, on coming to know that the petitioner is in love with one Renjith, who belongs to a different community, he has come down from Kuwait. According to him, he is ready to scarify his job in Kuwait for the sake of his minor son. He expressed chagrin in even temporary custody of the child being given to Haseena, the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minor Namsad was in the custody of the petitioner during the past two years and it was only on 14.09.2012 that the 4th respondent, brother of the 3rd respondent, accompanied by a few goondas came and kidnapped the child away after threatening the petitioner and the petitioner’s mother. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner readily approached the 1st respondent at whose instance the custody of the child was given back to the petitioner. But, again on 22.09.2012, respondents 3 and 4 came and took the child away from the madrassa where the child was there for classes. The petitioner, who in the writ petition, has claimed that she has got married to Ranjith under Special Marriage Act, told us that the marriage is yet to take place, but notice of an intended marriage under Special Marriage Act has been given. Once the notice period expires, marriage will be conducted. Therefore, the child will be safe in her hands as she is the mother, she submitted.
4. Having considered what respondents 3 and 4 told us during our interaction with them, we are of the view that the issue as to who should have custody, temporary or permanent, of the minor Namsad, should be decided by the Family Court, Moovattupuzha. We direct the petitioner to approach the Family Court, Moovattupuzha in that regard. If the petitioner files appropriate petition before the Family Court, Moovattupuzha seeking custody of minor Namsad, the Family Court will give top priority to any application which the petitioner may file for temporary custody and will take a decision in that application in accordance with law without undue delay. Till such time as the Family Court passes orders on the application for temporary custody of the minor child filed by the petitioner, the Headmistress of VM Public School, where minor Namsad is presently studying for UKG, will permit the petitioner to have custody and company of her minor son, Namsad, inside the school premises from 3.30 till 4.45 pm on every school working day.
5. The Headmistress, VM Public School, Perumattam via Moovattupuzha is impleaded suo moto as additional 5th respondent. Registry is directed to carry out corrections in the cause title.
6. We direct the petitioner to report in the school of the additional 5th respondent at 3.30 pm sharp on every working day. The present arrangement regarding temporary custody of the child will continue till the Family Court, Moovattupuzha, passes orders on the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment to the additional 5th respondent immediately. Issue sufficient number of copies of this judgment to the petitioner and to the 3rd respondent on application.
Petition disposed of
