Kerala High Court
WP(Crl.)/641/2012 of RAJESWARI PREM RAJ Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(Crl.).No. 641 of 2012 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- RAJESWARI PREM RAJ,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(Crl.).No. 641 of 2012 (S)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
RAJESWARI PREM RAJ, AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. PREM RAJ, CHEMMAKHATHU, POONTHOPPU WARD
ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA 689 121.
4. DEEPAK MANU FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
KAIPPASSERIL HOUSE, MULUKKUZHA PARACKAL
KARAKKADAU MULAKKAZHA 689 505.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAGOPAL PADIPPURACKAL
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, ADGP GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:NIL
RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS:
EXT.R4ATRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEVASWOM MANAGER, SREEKRISHNA SWATHY TEMPLE, KANAKKARY.EXT.R4BTRUE COPY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO SHILPA PREMRAJ.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
BKA
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE&BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
On considering this writ petition filed by the mother ofMs.Shilpa Premraj, a 20 year old girl, alleging that herdaughter was abducted by the 4[th] respondent in the courseof a train journey from Kadappah in Andra Pradesh toKerala, we passed the following order on 20.12.2012; “Not admitted. The Additional State PublicProsecutor, Sri. Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, will seekinstructions from the concerned among R1 to R3 as towhat is the status of the investigation, if any, conductedin the complaint submitted by the petitioner regardingthe disappearance of her daughter, Shilpa Premraj.
Issue notice on admission by speed post to the R4.R4 is directed to produce Ms.Shilpa Premraj before thisCourt at 10.15 am on 31.12.2012.
R1 to R3 are directed to produce Ms.ShilpaPremraj, if she is traced out in the meanwhile, before acompetent Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court with anotice to the petitioner.”
2. Today, Ms.Shilpa Premraj accompanied by the 4[th]
respondent is present before us. The 4[th] respondent has
..2..
filed a detailed affidavit along with which he has producedExts.R4A and R4B. Ext.R4A is a certificate dated19.12.2012 issued by Sreekrishna Swami Temple atKanakkari in Kottayam district. R4A reveals that themarriage between the 4[th] respondent and Shilpa Premraj,both of who are Hindus and belong to the Ezhavacommunity, was solemnized at the above temple on19.12.2012. Ext.R4B is a photostat copy of the relevantpage of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate pertainingto Shilpa Premraj and the certificate reveals that ShilpaPremraj has completed 20 years of age. Shilpa and the 4[th]respondent placed before us a few photographs, whichwould show that as claimed by them, their marriage wasconducted at Kanakkari Temple.
3. The petitioner, Smt.Rajeswari Prem Raj, ispresent before us and we interacted with her also. Sheseems to be really cut up in that her daughter contracted amarriage without informing her and her husband, who is
..3..
presently working abroad. She told us that the marriagebetween her daughter and the 4[th] respondent should belegalized in all respects. The marriage should have theblessings of the close relatives of the 4[th] respondent.
4. The 4[th] respondent would now respond and submitthat notice of an intended marriage between him and Shilpais already submitted to the Sub Registrar, Chengannur, whois also Marriage Officer under the provisions of the SpecialMarriage Act. He told us that once the notice period isover, the marriage will be solemnized. He further told usthat, at that marriage, all available close relatives of him,including mother's direct sisters, will be present. Thepetitioner also told us that after consulting her husband,she and her relatives as well as her husband's relatives willalso attend the proposed marriage under the provisions ofthe Special Marriage Act.
5. We record all that the parties told us today during the course of our interactions with them. The short
..4..
question which arises for decision is whether there iswarrant for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The abovequestion can be answered only in the negative.
We dispose of this writ petition directing the 4[th]
respondent to have the marriage between him and ShilpaPremraj solemnized/registered under the provisions of theSpecial Marriage Act in the presence of the members of thefamilies of the bride and the bridegroom.
Sd/-PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.
Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,JUDGE.
bka/-