HANNATH MATHEW Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the 7th respondent. It is stated that they were in love and the petitioner eloped with the 7th respondent. The parties also stated that a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition was filed by the father of the petitioner and at the time when the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition came up for hearing, the petitioner wanted to go with the 7th respondent. Thereafter, they lived in the house of the 7th respondent. A child was born in that wedlock. The child, Aron, is aged 6 years.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the child was staying with her at her house at Thiruvananthapuram. The child had undergone studies in L.K.G. and U.K.G. at Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. Later, during vacation, the child was taken by the 7th respondent with a promise to return the child to the petitioner. Contrary to the promise, the 7th respondent did not return the child. It is alleged that the child is in the illegal custody of the 7th respondent.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, we close the Writ Petition (Criminal) with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedies before the appropriate forum.