JABA SELINA MARY Vs. S. K. ADITHYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A habeas corpus writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, as W.P.(Crl) No.201/2024, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11/3/2024 imposing costs of Rs.10,000.00 upon the petitioner, to be paid to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Authority. Complaining that the petitioner had not given instructions and nor signed any pleadings for the institution of the above said habeas corpus writ petition, she has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multiple reliefs including compensation of Rupees One Crore and criminal prosecution against those responsible for the institution of the above said habeas corpus petition. The first respondent is the Advocate who filed the above habeas corpus petition, and the second respondent is the S.H.O of Museum Police Station, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) The petitioner who filed W.P.(Crl) No.201/2024 in her capacity as the next friend of the detenues one Rajeev Damodaran, his wife Vijaya Prabha and their autistic daughter aged 7 years, now contends in the present petition that the above said Rajeev Damodaran is her husband and the other two persons, his former wife and child born in that former wife. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed by Rajeev Damodaran, an Assistant Commissioner of Excise Department and his wife Vijaya Prabha working in Income Tax Department as Commissioner, to look after their female child suffering from congenital intellectual disabilities. It is not clear from the present petition about the course of events which led to the conferment of status to the petitioner as the wife of the above said Rajeev Damodaran. Be that as it may, the subject matter of the present petition is that the first respondent instituted W.P.(Crl) No.201/2024 without the instructions from the petitioner making use of the documents containing the forged signatures of the petitioner. The allegation against the second respondent seems to be the inaction of the above officer in taking steps for retrieving the aforesaid Rajeev Damodaran and his daughter despite the complaint of missing preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Though notice was duly served on the second respondent, he did not choose to prefer any counter.