High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 05 KL CK 2992

Rajeena Beevi vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 18 May 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Soumen Sen, C.J · Syam Kumar V.M., J
CASE NUMBER
WP(CRL.) NO. 752 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 500 words

We have heard Mr. Faheem Ahsan S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor for Re-spondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Latheesh Sebastian, learned coun-sel for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.

2.

The maternal grandmother is the petitioner. Presently, the child is in the custody of his father. The mother admittedly was working abroad, and it is alleged and claimed by the petitioner that the child had been residing with her and that she had been taking good care of him. It was during such custody that the child was allegedly abducted by Respondent No. 7, the father of the child.

3.

Curiously, no steps have been taken either by the petitioner or by the mother to seek custody of the child. As of now, the child continues to remain in the custody of the father. Respondent No. 7 has also filed an application seeking a declaration of guardian-ship. This also makes the matter a little curious.

4.

However, since the custody petition is pending, and the mother of the child, with whom we have interacted, has submit-ted that three sittings have taken place in the meantime, we do not wish to disturb the present custody of the child. This, how-ever, shall not be construed as any affirmation of the father’s right to become the guardian of the child.

5.

In view of the fact that the child is suffering from a nephro-logical problem and is only three years old, the capacity of the father to provide and undertake such treatment may also be a relevant consideration in the pending proceeding.

6.

The learned Court before whom the proceeding is pending shall decide the matter impartially and without being influenced by any observation made in this judgment, by applying the crite-ria stipulated under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and other relevant legislation concerning the welfare of the child.

7.

The petition is disposed of.

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 752 OF 2026

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER’S DAUGHTER DATED 03/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE PANGODE PUTHANPALLY MUSLIM JAMA’ATH

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE BABY CHILD NAMELY AIDEN MIRAAN J. DATED 06/05/2026

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRASOUND SCAN REPORT DATED 01/01/2026 ISSUED BY DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ALONGWITH OUT PATIENT RECORD ISSUED BY SAT HOSPITAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 01/01/2026

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR VIDE NO. 1057/2025 REGISTERED BY CHADAYAMANGALAM PS

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02/04/2026 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RE-SPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DATED 03/04/2026

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR VIDE NO. 0388/2026 REGISTERED BY THE NEDUMANGAD PS AGAINST THE 7TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/04/2026 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/04/2026 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT