SAJI MON K K Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are of the view that this petition is a clear abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner claims to have got married with one Beena Sebastian. These kind of petitions are very usual and too frequent in this Court. Petitioner has produced a registered marriage contract, Ext. P2 dated 19th August 1991 said to have been executed before the Sub Registrar, Kuravilangad. Both parties believed that would be sufficient to make them husband and wife. But, what is more peculiar in the present case before us is that this agreement was cancelled by Beena Sebastian by herself and accepting the said cancellation, the petitioner has also cancelled that marriage contract. Petitioner now wants to say that the cancellation by Beena Sebastian was based on some misrepresentation and the cancellation thereafter by the petitioner of the original agreement is also based on misrepresentation or misapprehension. Petitioner also contends that Beena Sebastian is now under illegal custody of her parents and, therefore, they should be directed to produce her in Court. It has become a very unhealthy practice so far as this Court is concerned to file petitions for issue of Habeas Corpus making allegations that a girl, be it a minor or a major who is living with her parents, is under illegal custody of the parents. Petitioner would say that the execution of a marriage contract before the Registrar of Assurances under the Registration Act had given the petitioner a right to live with the girl, the other party to the contract and would seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus. One can understand if there is a valid marriage and the girl who is married is being prevented by her parents from joining her husband. In such cases, no doubt, it might be open for the husband, without seeking restitution of conjugal rights under the relevant statute relating to marriage, to approach this Court by way of Habeas Corpus. But, it has become a practise for persons who on their own showing are not husbands in law to file petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by merely making an allegation that the other woman who is not married but who is a party to the contract is under illegal custody merely because the girl is staying with her parents and the parents are taking care of the girl within the usual limits of parental control. This cannot, in our view, be characterised as illegal custody.