Kerala High Court
WP(Crl.)/468/2008 of SANDHYA @ THANKAMANI Vs RATHEESH CHANDRAN @ KARAKULAM UNNI AND on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 468 of 2008(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930
WP(Crl.).No. 468 of 2008(S)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
SANDHYA @ THANKAMANI,
W/O.JAYAKUMAR, T.C.13/694, PADMASREE,
VADAYAKKADU, KUNNUKUZHI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. RATHEESH CHANDRAN @ KARAKULAM UNNI,
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, SREE VALSAM,
KEEZHE ENNASSERY, ARAMKALLU,
KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. VATHSALAKUMARI, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
SREE VALSAM, KEEZHE ENNASSERY ARAMKALLU, KARAKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
SREE VALSAM, KEEZHE ENNASSERY,
ARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.5.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIVANDRUMWOMEN'S CELL.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
prv.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(Crl.).No.468 of 2008-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30[th ]day of December, 2008. Dated this the 30[th ]day of December, 2008.
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.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.:
1. Following notice, the alleged detenue Keerthi hasappeared. We spoke to her. Her parents are alsopresent. Her parents-in-law, namely, respondents2 and 3, are also present.appeared. We spoke to her. Her parents are alsopresent. Her parents-in-law, namely, respondents2 and 3, are also present.
2. We are satisfied that Keerthi has taken thedecision to continue to reside with her parents-in-law, while her husband is, as of now, workingin Quatar; a foreign country. She has clearlyexpressed her disinterest to interact with herparents, as of now. She has told us the reasonsdecision to continue to reside with her parents-in-law, while her husband is, as of now, workingin Quatar; a foreign country. She has clearlyexpressed her disinterest to interact with herparents, as of now. She has told us the reasons
-: 2 :-
for such decision. On grounds relatable to herprivacy, we desist from recording them. We aresatisfied that she is not under illegalconfinement or detention, by her parents-in-lawand that Keerthi is a free person.
3. We also record that Keerthi has mentioned thather parents are in possession of her schoolcertificate which was obtained by them from theschool, without her concurrence. If the parentshave any such certificate with them, they shallmake it available to the learned counselappearing for Keerthi in this case within twoweeks from now, to be given to her. Otherwise,Keerthi will be at liberty to bring up thismatter for further orders. If her parents arenot in possession of Keerthi's schoolcertificate, they will inform her learnedcounsel accordingly within a period of two weeksand in such event, the concerned authoritieswill issue duplicate certificate to Keerthi in accordance with law.
4. Before parting, we would record that we aredisturbed by a statement by Keerthi. She saysthat she is three months' pregnant, as of now.The marriage was on 26-5-2008. She says that her18[th] birthday was on 20-12-2008. The parents ofKeerthi appear to be educated and obviously,well informed. Her father-in-law is stated to bea police official, now on deputation to someother establishment. Marriage at young age isdetrimental to health and affects society atlarge. Legislative measures were, therefore,brought to put restraint on such marriages. TheChild Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, particularlySections 4, 5 and 6, appear to stare at thefacts of this case as disclosed by the statementof Keerthi. Taking note of different aspects, weleave it there.
Subject to what is stated above, relief sought for in this writ petition is refused and thematter is ordered in terms of what is statedabove.
Sd/-THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
Sd/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge.
-true copy-
P.S.to Judge.