SHAJI. S Vs. AMEER KANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition (Crl) seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his two minor children and their mother who is said to be in the illegal custody of respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner in the writ petition claims that his wife suffers 85% hearing impairment and also has intellectual disability. It is alleged that after the birth of the two children the respondents 1 and 2 have been trying desperately to separate the petitioner from his wife. The petitioner also alleges that the respondents 1 and 2 with the help of goondas forcefully took his wife and children away, after manhandling himself and his physically challenged sister.

(2.) We directed the learned Senior Government Pleader to get a statement of the alleged detenue. The learned Senior Government Pleader has produced the statement of the alleged detenue recorded by the 4th respondent along with a memo. The statement discloses quite contrary facts as alleged by the wife of the petitioner. She admits her hearing impairment but does not speak of any other disability. According to her the entire financial assistance extended to her at the time of marriage has been frittered away by the petitioner. The petitioner also sought for further financial help by selling off her parental residence. It is categorically stated that on her request, her parents had taken her and the minor children to their residence. She also speaks of a complaint registered under S.498 IPC as crime No. 410/2021 before the Kareelakulangara Police Station. She asserts that she has not been coerced or threatened and that it is due to the continued harassment, both physical and mental, at her marital home that she resumed the residence with her parents along with the minor children. Her decision is also to further reside with her parents.

(3.) We find no reason to issue a writ of habeas corpus since there is no illegal detention. The wife of the petitioner has willingly walked out of her marital home and is now residing with her parents on her free will. The children born in the wedlock are also with their mother. We dismiss the writ petition but however leaving remedy to the petitioner to agitate his cause for custody of the children before the appropriate forum; which obviously the mother would be entitled to contest and defend.