Manjula vs The Sub Inspector of Police and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—The prayers in the writ petition read as under:

1) to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to produce before this Hon''ble Court, the detenue, the minor children of the Petitioner Rahul aged 11 years, and Vishnu aged 9 years who is in the illegal and forced custody of the Respondents 3 to 5, and thus grant the Petitioner the custody of her children.

2) to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate writ, order or such direction to the Respondents 3 to 5 to produce before this Hon''ble Court, the detenue, the minor children of the Petitioner Rahul aged 11 years, and Vishnu aged 9 years who is in the illegal and forced custody of the Respondents 3 to 5, and thus grant the Petitioner the custody of her children.

3) to issue such direction or order directing the 6th Respondent to take up the issue with the State of Karnataka and take such steps to effectuate the executive machinery under the Home Department.

Briefly put, the case of the Petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner''s minor children are illegally detained by Respondents 3 to 5 after the death of her husband. Petitioner had about 14 years back married one Sri. Hareesh. They were blessed with two children, the elder son is aged 11 years and the younger son is aged 9 years. Petitioner''s husband died almost two years back. Petitioner was not accepted in the community and was shunned by Respondents 3 to 5 even while her husband was alive. It is almost one and a half years back Respondents 3 to 5 threw her out of her rented house. Petitioner, after being forcibly separated from her children made to return back to Kerala. Petitioner preferred a complaint with the police in Karnataka who refused to entertain her grievance. Left with no other way, the Petitioner came back to Kerala and obtained a job in Thrissur. Over the two years, several times, the Petitioner attempted to see her children and to bring them back to give them proper education. It is stated that the Petitioner complained to the police, and, accordingly has approached this Court.

We heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. On going through the averments we are of the view that Petitioner may not be justified in approaching this Court as we would think that on the allegations the Petitioner may have to approach the Court in Karnataka. Even though an attempt is made to confer jurisdiction on this Court on the basis that part of jurisdiction arose in the State of Kerala we are of the view that no part of cause of action arose in the State of Kerala. In such circumstances, the Petitioner may, if she is so advised, approach the Court in Karnataka. Then the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner has moved the State police, but they are not taking action. Learned Government Pleader was asked to get instructions. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that proceedings have commenced. In such circumstances, we close this Writ Petition (Criminal) without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner to approach the Court in Karnataka or any other competent forum.