THANKAMMA KOSHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grandmother of Neenu Elizabeth Abraham, aged 19 years, who is the daughter of her eldest son, Abraham Koshy, has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the detenue from the custody and detention of the 5th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner's son, Abraham Koshy died on 6.7.2002 when his daughter was 5 years old. The petitioner has been residing with the family of her younger son Thomas Koshy at Nalanchira, Thiruvananthapuram. The mother of the detenue got remarried in the year 2004 and is in Kuwait along with her husband. The detenue had studied up to her 10th standard in Kuwait. For her plus 2 education, she was brought to India. After completing her plus 2 course, she has joined a degree course, B.A. Animation, in the School of Media and Designing, Puthupadi, which is functioning under the Eldo Mar Baselious College, Kothamangalam. She was attending to her studies residing in a Home Stay conducted by one James Villayil, Vulavoor Junction, Puthupadi. During vacations, the detenue used to be either in the house of the petitioner or at her mother's house.

(3.) According to the petitioner, she got information in the above circumstances on 11.8.2016 from the owner of the Home Stay at Puthupady that the detenue had left the place without their permission. Both the petitioner and her younger son tried to contact her over mobile phone. In the evening when they contacted her, she told the petitioner's younger son that she was on her way to Chengannur to her mother's paternal home. However, she did not reach there. In the above circumstances, she complained to the police. Crime No. 1875 of 2016 was registered. Thereafter she received information that she was abducted by the 5th respondent who is working as a taxi driver at Thiruvananthapuram. The investigation conducted by the Police revealed that she was at a house in Valiyamala along with the 5th respondent. It is alleged that though the petitioner's family members had gone to the house of the 5th respondent, he did not permit them to see the detenue. Therefore, contending that the 5th respondent had no right to detain the detenue, this writ petition is filed.