REMYA VIDHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the alleged detenu Adhi Dev, aged 9 years, filed this writ petition alleging his illegal detention by the 3rd respondent, who is none other than the mother of the petitioner and in other words, the grandmother of the alleged detenu. The contention of the petitioner is that she being the biological mother of the alleged detenu and the 3rd respondent, got no legal right to keep the custody of the child. It is her further contention that the biological father of the child is Mr.Raj Kanakaraj and he deserted her even before the birth of the alleged detenu. The marriage between the petitioner and the aforesaid Raj Kanakaraj was not legally registered and it took place in Kuwait in the presence of friends and well wishers. Only after conception of Adhi Dev she came to know that Sri.Raj Kanakaraj is a family man. She puts the blame on her brother Mr.Umesh and her mother, the third respondent for her marriage with Sri.Kanakaraj. After parting his company the petitioner married one Vidhu Veluthakunju Karunakaran and in that wedlock she got a girl child by name Adhulya Vidhu, aged 6 years. She gave birth to Adhi Dev on 13.02.2011 and in the birth certificate of the alleged detenu Adhi Dev his father's name was wrongly given as "Joseph Nelson" instead of Raj Kanakaraj and she put its blame also on her brother Mr.Umesh. Neither Mr.Raj Kanakaraj nor the fictitious person 'Joseph Nelson' has come forward claiming custody of Adhi Dev. Though several other contentions were also raised by the petitioner against the 3 rd respondent and Sri.Umesh, her own mother and brother, we do not think it necessary to take note of such contentions for the reason to be stated infra, except the admitted fact within a month since delivery of the alleged detenu Adhi Dev she left for Kuwait and at no point of time since then, the said child was with the custody of the petitioner. She narrated reasons therefor in the writ petition. It is raising all such contentions that the writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to produce Adhi Dev before this Court and to direct them to set the child at liberty to go along with the petitioner.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and also the learned senior Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is yet to be incorporated. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would admit that he received its copy. He would submit that the petitioner came to know about the filing of G.O.P. No.1268/2020 by the 3rd respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam for her appointment as guardian of the alleged detenu only on receipt of the counter affidavit. He further submitted that, on going through the counter affidavit, it appears that an interim order was passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam regarding the interim custody of the child in favour of the 3rd respondent. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that though an order was passed, it was not produced as its copy is yet to be received.