DR. ATHULYA ASOK Vs. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, is the mother of the detenu, a boy aged 13 years. She had re-married after the dissolution of her marriage with the father of the detenu. In the wedlock of the petitioner with her present husband, she gave birth to a baby girl on 7/12/2023. The father of the detenu (petitioner's previous husband), who was employed in Dubai, had passed away on 27/10/2023 at Thrissur. The detenu was under the care and protection of his father till the death of his father. Earlier, the detenu remained in Dubai along with his father, and he was undergoing his studies in a school at Sharjah. The detenu and his father came to their home village at Thrissur in the year 2023 once it was known that the detenu's father was afflicted with incurable cancer. Till the death of the petitioner's former husband (detenu's father) on 27/10/2023, the detenu continued his studies in a school at Thrissur. However, after the demise of his father, the detenu was shifted to Dubai and taken care of by respondents 6 to 8, who are the brother-in-law, sister and sister's daughter respectively of the detenu's father. Alleging that the detenu was taken abroad in violation of the injunction order of the Family Court, Palakkad, and that the detenu was being kept under the illegal custody of respondents 5 to 8, the petitioner has moved this writ petition, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, directing the production of the detenu before this Court.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 were represented by the learned Government Pleader and the 4th respondent by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. Respondents 5 to 8 were represented by Adv.Sri.Sunil Nair Palakkat, the learned counsel.

(3.) In accordance with the direction of this Court, respondents 6 and 7 produced the detenu before another Division Bench of this Court on 15/3/2024. After interaction with the detenu and the petitioner, the parties were referred to the Family Counselling Centre attached to this Court, since the child was reluctant to go with the petitioner, his mother.