M.M.MATHEW @ JOY Vs. MARY ABRAHAM @ VIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of a person named Mr.Melvin Mathew, stated tobe aged 29 years, is the petitioner herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of Mr.Melvin Mathew(hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue') and to release him from the alleged illegal custody of respondents 1 to4.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. Respondents 2 to 4 are the brother, sister and brother in law of the 1st respondent. Averments in the writ petition are to the effect that, the marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent stands dissolved legally, since the year 2004. The petitioner was employed in the middle east and the 1st respondent was working as a teacher at Thodupuzha. After dissolution of the marriage, the alleged detenue and another child born to the parties were living with the 1st respondent at Thodupuzha. It is stated that, the petitioner had assigned certain properties to his children and he was looking after the welfare of the children. The daughter of the petitioner got married and is now settled in United States. The alleged detenue was studying for engineering course at Coimbatore. But he became addicted to drugs and other narcotic substances. Hence he was brought back from Coimbatore. Even though the petitioner took the alleged detenue to UAE, he was brought back as he expressed his desire to settle at Thodupuzha along with the 1 st respondent. The alleged detenue was taking intermittent treatment at SH Hospital, Pynkulam, Thodupuzha for de-adiction. According to the petitioner, whenever he comes to Kerala from UAE, he used to spend time with the alleged detenue. During 2013, the petitioner came to know that the alleged detenue had executed a power of attorney in favour of the 1 st respondent with respect to the properties assigned by the petitioner to the alleged detenue. On knowing about this, the petitioner approached the civil court seeking injunction against the 1 st respondent from alienating the properties belonging to the alleged detenue. On 08.11.2018 the petitioner came to know that the alleged detenue is admitted in the hospital at Pynkulam. The petitioner had visited him at the hospital on 09.11.2018 and on the subsequent three days. It is alleged that, the 1st respondent was not happy with the visits made by the petitioner at the hospital and in the petitioner spending time with the alleged detenue. On 14.11.2018 when the petitioner visited the hospital, it was realized that the 1st respondent got the alleged detenue discharged from the said hospital. Thereafter whereabouts of the alleged detenue was not revealed to the petitioner. It is W.P.(Crl) No. 484/2018 alleged that the respondents 1 to 4 are keeping the alleged detenue under confinement against his free will. Therefore the above writ petition is filed seeking relief as mentioned above.

(3.) When the case came up for admission, this court directed the 5th respondent to conduct a discreet enquiry into the allegations of illegal detention. It was directed that if the alleged detenue could be traced out, his independent statement shall be recorded and produced before this court.