SEBASTIAN Vs. MOIDEEN A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the husband of the 2nd respondent. According to him, the marriage between them took place on 14-6-1982 and it was registered in the Sub-Registry, Mulamthuruthy. Even before the said marriage, they had been on intimate terms. The 2nd respondent is pregnant, the pregnancy having advanced by about five months. The petitioner is a Christian. Parents of the 2nd respondent did not object to the alliance. All that they wanted was that he should get himself converted to Islam. The petitioner was agreeable to this course. He even went to Ponnani for this purpose. He had to come back since he was told that he had to stay there for a month to learn Arabic and religious texts before conversion. On the date of marriage, according to him, the 2nd respondent had attained majority.

(2.) The Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station registered a case as Crime No. 134 of 1982 on the complaint of the 1st respondent, the father of the 2nd respondent and arrested the 2nd respondent from the house of the petitioner and produced her before the Judicial I Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent applied to the Magistrate that the 2nd respondent be released to his custody. The petitioner made a similar application for her release to his custody. The 2nd respondent also submitted a petition stating that she did not intend to go with her father and that she might be permitted to go with the petitioner. The Ist respondent bad produced the certified copy of an extract of an admission register issued by the Head Master, Government High School for girls, Ernakulam. In this document, the date of birth of the 2nd respondent was shown as 3-4-1967. The genuineness of this document was strongly disputed by the petitioner as well as by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner stated before the Magistrate that no offence had been reported to the Police and that therefore the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the case. Disregarding the contentions of the petitioner as well as of the 2nd respondent, the court below directed release of the 2nd respondent to the custody of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent took the 2nd respondent away by force ignoring protests. The petitioner came to know that the Ist respondent was compelling the 2nd respondent to consent to an abortion. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate mentioned above, the petitioner has moved this Court in this revision.

(3.) Along with the revision petition, the petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 764 of 1982 to stay the operation of the order of the Magistrate and to direct the 1st respondent to produce the 2nd respondent before this court and to release her from the obligations arising from the aforesaid order.