High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2013-03-12Disposed of

B. Shafeeq v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(Crl.) No. 103 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. Kuriakose
P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2013-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions. The court found that Surumi, though having expressed affection for the petitioner, is not to be married immediately; she should be allowed to pursue education, with assurances from her parents. The rule nisi issued earlier is satisfied, and the criminal court is instructed not to be influenced by the observations in this judgment. The petitioner is advised to obtain a clean acquittal in the abduction case and to secure stable employment before marriage.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B. Shafeeq

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Home Department, Government of Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
Abdul Samad
Souda
District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, PMG, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kattakkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram-695 572

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C.S. Manu
• Sri. S.K. Premraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.I. Abdul Rasheed (Addl. Director General of Prosecution)
• Sri S. Abdul Kareem (Sr. Government Pleader)
• Sri T.A. Unnikrishnan
• Sri K. Satheesh Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition (criminal) WP(Crl) No.103 of 2013 heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, B. Shafeeq, alleges that Alfia Sulthana A.S. @ Surumi, the daughter of respondents 2 and 3, is illegally detained by her parents and seeks habeas corpus relief, arguing that Surumi is in love with him and wishes to marry him. The court had earlier issued a rule nisi and directed police officers to interact with Surumi in plain clothes to ascertain the circumstances of her detention and her wishes. During subsequent proceedings, Surumi was brought before the court and stated that she continues to love the petitioner but wishes to pursue education; she recently turned 18. The court noted concerns about her maturity and the risk of abduction, and observed that, despite her affection for the petitioner, her parents intend to allow her education and to decide on marriage only after she completes a degree and attains employment. The petitioner invoked Rajmohan v. State of Kerala to claim that majority status should allow her to marry regardless of social constraints, but the court distinguished that authority and emphasized Surumi’s parental custody while prioritizing her education and future independence. The petition was disposed of with directions: the rule nisi served, Surumi’s education to be facilitated, and guidance to the criminal court to refrain from being influenced by observations herein.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Surumi is his love and fiancée and that she is illegally detained by respondents 2 and 3 against her wishes. He argues that Surumi has expressed a desire to marry him and seeks that she be allowed to join him. He asserts that the Constitution and human rights principles require respecting the autonomy of an adult to marry and to live with him, and invokes Rajmohan v. State of Kerala as authority supporting his position, though the court ultimately does not treat that decision as controlling. He requests protection of his relationship and a remedy to the alleged abduction and detention.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 2 and 3 (Abdul Samad and Souda) submitted that Surumi, though young, is their unmarried daughter and they are concerned with her safety and education. They asserted they would permit her to pursue higher education and would decide about marriage only after she completes a degree and gains employment. They claimed to act in Surumi’s best interests and to safeguard her from coercion or abduction. Respondents 1, 4, and 5, represented by the Addl. DG Prosecution, emphasized maintaining law and order and protecting Surumi from harm while considering the welfare of the family; the writ petition was to be disposed of with directions balancing rights and protection.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajmohan v. State of Kerala	2009 (4) KLT 466	Distinguished	The court notes that Rajmohan v. State of Kerala is not an authority for the proposition advanced by the petitioner; it distinguishes the cited case from the present facts and requires a different approach given Surumi’s status and the guardianship context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against B. Shafeeq v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/21ST PHALGUNA 1934** ## **WP(Crl.).No. 103 of 2013 ()** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------------------B.SHAFEEK, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. BABJAN,** **PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT UDAYANNUR THADATHARIATH VEEDU, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. ABDUL SAMAD , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,** - **FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT ALFIA VILLA, THOONGAMPARA, KATTAKKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572.** **3. SOUDA , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL SAMAD, RESIDING AT ALFIA VILLA, THOONGAMPARA, KATTAKKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572.** **4. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572.** **R1,R4 & R5 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED** **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL KAREEM R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss** ## **WP(CRL.)NO.103/2013 S** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:** **P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/10/2012 IN WP(CRL.)NO.515/2012 ON FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. D. RAJAN, JJ.** **-------------------------------------------------WP (Crl) No. 103 of 2013 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Pius C. Kuriakose, J. On considering this writ petition, where the petitioner alleges that one Alfia Sulthana A.S. @ Surumi, daughter of the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, is his love and fiancee and that she is illegally detained by respondents 2 and 3 against her wishes, we passed the following order on 04.03.2013; “Not admitted. Sri.S.Abdul Kareem, Sr.Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 4 and 5. The 5[th] respondent is directed to depute a Senior CPO and a WCPO in plain clothes over to the house of the 2[nd] respondent. Those officers will meet Surumi, daughter of the 2[nd] respondent and interact with her. A statement will be taken from her and instructions will be imparted to the learned Government Pleader on the basis of such statement as to the correctness of the allegations of the petitioner that Surumi is under illegal detention of her parents and also regarding the correctness of the petitioner's version that Surumi notwithstanding she told before this Court in Ext.P1 she is now deeply in love with the petitioner and wants to marry him. Issue copy to the Senior Government Pleader. Post on 08.03.2013.” 2. Pursuant to the above order, Sri.B.Kannan, the 5[th] respondent, filed a statement annexing the original of the WP (Crl) No. 103 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** statement, which was given by Alfia Sulthana @ Surumi to SCPO T1125, Sri.A.Sreekumar in the presence of WCPO T3495, Smt.S.Sreekala. As we felt, on reading that statement, that Alfia Sulthana is not allowed full freedom in her house, we issued a rule nisi on 08.03.2013 directing the production of Alfia Sulthana before us. Accordingly, Alfia Sulthana @ Surumi is brought before us by her parents. The petitioner and his parents are also present before us. 3. We interacted with all of them. During our interaction with Surumi, she told us that she continues to love the petitioner. But, at the same time, she also told us that she was good in studies and she wants to pursue her studies. Her complaint to us was that her parents are not permitting her to pursue her studies and her studies were terminated when she reached plus one stage. 4. Surumi attained 18 years of age very recently. The impression that we gathered out of the interaction which we had with Surumi is that she has not become mature enough to think in terms of a marriage. According to us, her parents, the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, are doing WP (Crl) No. 103 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** injustice to her if, as a matter of fact, they are standing in the way of accomplishment of Surumi's desire to acquire further education. But, Surumi's parents and particularly, her father, the 2[nd] respondent, told us that they are ready and willing to permit their eldest girl child to pursue her studies to the extent she wants whether it is for professional studies or for studies in arts and science and she will be given education at least till such time as she attains a degree. The 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent told us that till Surumi acquires a degree and preferably an employment, they will not give her in marriage to anybody. We record all that 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent told us and direct them to honour the assurances, which they have given us. 5. The petitioner is an autorikshaw driver. He came into contact with Surumi in a manner which we describe as unauthorized. He came across the telephone number of Surumi's mother from an autograph signed by Surumi and handed over to one of her friends. He made a call to that number and Surumi would proceed that call. At that time, Surumi was a minor. He took her (a clear case of WP (Crl) No. 103 of 2013 ..4.. abduction) and kept custody of her till she was traced out by the Police on the basis of a person missing complaint submitted by the 2[nd] respondent, her father. It was while Surumi was in the custody of the petitioner that Surumi's father filed WP(Crl) No.515/2012 resulted in Ext.P1 judgment. In fact, in connection with that case, Surumi was brought before us and we interacted with her on 31.10.2012. At that time, she told us that she repents what happened earlier and that she gave assurance that such incidents will not recur in future. We invited Surumi's attention specifically to Ext.P1 judgment and expressed our displeasure to her in Surumi's turning volte-face. She told us that it was only when she came to know that her parents are thinking in terms of marrying her of quickly to somebody else that she took that stand before the SCPO and WCPO, who recorded her statement. In view of the assurances given by her parents, which we have recorded, she need not have the apprehension that she will be married of by her parents forcibly to a person she does not like. WP (Crl) No. 103 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in **Rajmohan v. State of Kerala** (2009 (4) KLT 466) and submitted that when it is obvious that Surumi has attained majority, all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens of India should be allowed to her also and she should be permitted to join the petitioner irrespective of his social and financial status and her desire to pursue her education. We do not think that the case cited above is an authority of the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, Surumi is an unmarried daughter of respondents 2 and 3. Till she is lawfully given in marriage to somebody, the custody of Surumi has to be with her parents, especially in these days when she stands the risk of being contacted by abductors and criminals through unauthorized telephone calls. The petitioner is facing trial in an abduction case. According to us, he has to come out with a clean acquittal in that case. Then, he has to secure a proper employment, which would enable him to maintain and support his life partner. We WP (Crl) No. 103 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** cannot insist that Surumi should be allowed to join him immediately. As for the writ of habeas corpus sought for, the purpose of this writ petition is already served by the rule nisi, which we issued. Surumi has agreed before us that if her parents are ready to give her proper education, she will cooperate and pursue the education so that she secures an employment, whereby she can become self relied. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. We make it clear that the criminal court, which is trying the case presently pending against the petitioner, should not be influenced, in any manner, by any of the observations contained in this judgment. **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.** **P. D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** bka/-