KUNUMOL Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the mother of a girl named 'Miss. Athira Ashok' is approaching this court raising an allegation that her daughter is under illegal confinement of respondents 2 and 3. The 2nd respondent is the father of the girl, Miss. Athira Ashok (hereinafter referred as the alleged detenue).

(2.) Averments in the writ petition are that, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner were in love and they have solemnized a marriage in a temple at Thiruvarp on 04.03.1996. They were living together and the alleged detenue was born out of their cohabitation, on 05.01.1997. It is stated that the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent got strained and the 2nd respondent left the petitioner along with the child and started separate living in his family house. Thereafter the 2nd respondent left Kerala along with the child and his whereabouts are not known to the petitioner. On 02.02.2016, the petitioner got information that the 2nd respondent had reached his family house, along with the child. Eventhough the petitioner went to the family house of the 2nd respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 have not allowed the petitioner to see the child. It is stated that, she came to know that the 2nd respondent had married another lady and that the alleged detenue is not provided with any due care and protection. It is also alleged that the detenue was provided with education only up to the VIIIth standard and that she is being kept in the house of the 2nd respondent as a servant. According to the petitioner, the girl (alleged detenue) had now completed the age of 18 years and she was compelled to live in the family of the respondents 2 and 3 as a servant. She was denied of education and is being treated with cruelty including physical torture, is the allegation. It is alleged that the alleged detenue is under wrongful confinement of respondents 2 and 3 against her free will. Based on the abovesaid allegations, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the alleged detenue and to release her from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) This court was not prima facie satisfied that there exists any circumstances to exercise jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it is evident that the alleged detenue is a major, living with her father, who is the 2nd respondent herein at Mumbai, since the last so many years. However, considering the specific allegation that the petitioner is the biological mother of the alleged detenue and that she was prevented from seeing the detenue and also considering the allegation that she was not given education beyond 8th standard, we issued notice to respondents 2 and 3. The 1st respondent was also directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of illegal confinement and to get a statement of the alleged detenue recorded and produced before this court.