JOJU GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by three petitioners seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus on the allegation that their daughters Teresa Joju [daughter of the 1st petitioner], aged 21 years, Elna Thomas, [daughter of the 2nd petitioner], aged 26 years and Anjali Anto [daughter of the 3 rd petitioner], aged 30 years, are being illegally detained by respondents 7 to 9, who are administering a religious congregation that goes by the name of "Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR)". It is their case that while their respective daughters had joined the said congregation at a time when the said congregation was recognised by the Archdiocese of Thrissur, subsequent activities of respondents 7 to 9 resulted in a decree of dissolution [Decree No.980/2023 dtd. 27/4/2023] of the Archdiocese of Thrissur formally dissolving the said congregation and holding that the said congregation including its postulants and candidates will have no rights, privileges and duties under the Archdiocese of Thrissur, and further that respondents 7 to 9 are free to join other Institutes of Consecrated Life [Monasteries/Orders/Congregations etc.] as per their choice and the laws It is further stated that an appeal preferred by the 7 th of the Church. respondent before the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches in Rome was dismissed by the appellate authority, and the decision of the Archdiocese of Thrissur was upheld. Under the changed circumstances therefore, the petitioners believe that the continued association of their daughters with the "Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR)" is not of their own free will but essentially under the coercion of respondents 7 to 9.

(2.) The petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of a Full Bench of this Court in K.N. Sadanandan v. Raghava Kurup and others - [AIR 1975 Kerala 2 [FB]] and a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Lal Parameswar v. Ullas N.N. and others - [(2014) 1 KHC 791 [DB]] to contend that the liberties that are guaranteed to our citizens under the Constitution, cannot be stretched beyond limits nor can such freedom be made weapons to destroy our fundamental values or social establishments like families, which, undoubtedly, concede authority on parents to advise and guide their children even if they have attained the age of majority. It is contended that this court should not accept as a general principle that parents are, in all circumstances, bound to concede absolute decisional autonomy to their children, even if they have attained majority and that they remain helpless even in situations where their wards have taken wrong and immature decisions, which will be disastrous not only to the wards themselves, but also to the family concerned. As regards the instant case, it is the case of the petitioners that their daughters have not taken into consideration relevant facts and have been unduly influenced by respondents 7 to 9 to embrace the grueling rituals that are expected of members of the said congregation, which are ultimately not in the best interests of their daughters and the family of the petitioners.

(3.) We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam, assisted by Sri.Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader for the respondent/State. In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondents 7 to 9 in the writ petition.