High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-01-16W.P.(Crl.) No.11 of 2020 dismissed

Lekha v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2020-01-16
Court Decision / Holding: Hence, this W.P. (Crl) is dismissed.
Final Disposition: W.P.(Crl.) No.11 of 2020 dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lekha, aged 44 years, s/o Leela, Maruvathoor Konam, Kuzhithakidi Puthenveettill, Cheenivila, Koovalassery P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695512

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695005
Circle Inspector of Police, Office of Circle Inspector of Police, Pongumoodu, Thiruvananthapuram-695017
Sub Inspector of Police, Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram-695512
Vishnu, aged 18 years, s/o Sasidharan, Geetha Bhavan, Kavolottukonam, Perukavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695573
Sasidharan, Geetha Bhavan, Kavolottukonam, Perukavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695573
Sheeja, Sheeja Bhavan, Geetha Bhavan, Kavolottukonam, Perukavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695573

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R.T. Pradeep
• Smt. M. Bindudas
• Sri K.C. Harish

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.B. Ramanand, Government Pleader
• Sri Vishnu Bhuvanendran
• Smt. B. Anusree

Case Synopsis & Summary

Lekha, mother of Anakha L.S., aged 18, moved the High Court stating that her daughter was missing and subsequently traced in the company of the 5th respondent, Vishnu. Crime No.11/2020 was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Anakha was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 04.01.2020 and, noting that the 5th respondent had not attained majority, the Magistrate handed custody to the 7th respondent, daughter of the 5th respondent’s maternal aunt, who accommodated Anakha in the houses of respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner contends that Anakha remains under unlawful detention at the hands of respondents 5–6 and that the custody by the 7th respondent is a ruse to circumvent court orders. The detenue, interrogated in court, denied unlawful detention and stated that she has been in a consensual relationship with the 5th respondent since attaining majority, and that they live together in the 6th respondent’s house, while she sometimes visits the 5th/6th households. She wishes to continue living with the 5th respondent despite his not having attained marriageable age. The court cites Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (AIR 2018 SC 1933) and Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018 (2) KLT 783 (SC)) to underscore that a majority-born individual has the right to choose and live with a partner, not to be treated as being in illegal detention. The petition is dismissed, holding no illegality in the detenue’s living arrangement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Police Act, Section 57CrPC, Section 15(7)Constitution of India, Article 226Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

parens patriae

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the detenue Anakha L.S., aged 18, is unlawfully detained by respondents 5–6 under the custody of the 7th respondent, which was a ruse to bypass the court's order. She seeks production of the detenue and her release, relying on the majority rights of an individual and the courts’ non-intervention in such personal matters. The petitioner relies on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing autonomy of a majority person to choose with whom to live, and to live without parental or state guardianship.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the detenue, though 18, has lived in the custody of respondents 5–6 and in the 7th respondent’s custody by court order, and that the magistrate’s order was adhered to; they contend there is no unlawful detention and that the detenue’s desire to live with the 5th respondent does not negate the legality of the custody proceedings. They rely on the need to respect the court’s orders and the fact that the detenue was in a consensual relationship and subject to guardianship considerations under the law.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.	AIR 2018 SC 1933	Positive	The court relies on the principle that attaining majority carries autonomy and the court should not be a parens patriae, supporting the detenue’s freedom to choose her partner.
Nandakumar v. State of Kerala	2018 (2) KLT 783 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support the recognition of live-in relationships and the right of a majority-aged individual to live with a partner.

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 Lekha 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 K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941** **WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **LEKHA, AGED 44, S/O.LEELA, MARUVATHOORKONAM, KUZHITHAKIDI PUTHENVEETTIL, CHEENIVILA, KOOVALASSERY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 512.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.** - **3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONGUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.** - **4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 512.** - **5 VISHNU, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, GEETHA BHAVAN, KAVOLOTTUKONAM, PERUKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.** WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 2 |**6**|**SASIDHARAN, GEETHA BHAVAN,**| |---|---| ||**KAVOLOTTUKONAM,**| ||**PERUKAVU P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.**| |**7**|**SHEEJA, SHEEJA BHAVAN,**| ||**GEETHA BHAVAN,**| ||**KAVOLOTTUKONAM, PERUKAVU P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.**| ||**R5-7 BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN**| ||**R5-7 BY ADV. SMT.B.ANUSREE**| ||**R1-R4 BY SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Harilal, J** The petitioner herein is the mother of the alleged detenue, by name , Anakha.L.S., aged 18 years. According to her, the alleged detenue was found missing from 03.01.20120 and she reported the matter to the police. The police registered a crime, as Crime No.11/2020 under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Subsequently, her daughter was traced out from the company of the 5[th] respondent and produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 04.01.2020 without informing the petitioner. The jurisdictional Magistrate, finding that the 5[th] respondent has not attained majority, had sent the girl along WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 4 with the 7[th] respondent, who is the daughter of the maternal aunt of the 5[th] respondent. Thus the 7[th] respondent had taken the custody of the detenue; but she accommodated her in the house of respondents 5 and 6 and thereafter the detenue is under the unlawful detention of respondents 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, the custody taken by the 7[th] respondent was only a ruse played before the court to get over the situation. The petitioner sought for a direction to the police to produce the detenue before this Court and to set her free. 2. In compliance with the interim order of this Court, the detenue has been produced before this Court and we have interacted with the detenue. The detenue denied the allegation that WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 5 she is under the unlawful detention of respondents 5 and 6. According to her, they have not imposed any kind of restrictions on her free and independent life. She further states that she was in love with the 5[th] respondent for the last several years and when she attained majority they have taken a decision to live together, though the 5[th] respondent has not attained the marriageable age. Consequently, she eloped with the 5[th] respondent and thereafter they were living together in the house of the 6[th] respondent. While so, the police detected them and produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned Magistrate permitted her to go and live together with the 7[th] respondent, who is the daughter of WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 6 the maternal aunt of the 5[th] respondent. According to her, even now she is living with the 7[th] respondent and she occasionally visits and live in the house of respondents 5 and 6 as both houses are situated very near. She wants to go and live together with the 5[th] respondent, though he has not attained the marriageable age. ## 3. In _**Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.**_ **[AIR 2018 SC 1933]** the Supreme Court held that “it needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individuals life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts cannot as long as the choice remains, assume the role of _parens patriae_ . The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 7 law permits and the courts should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiments of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so, without any reservation. 4. In **Nandakumar v. State of Kerala** [ **2018 (2) KLT 783 (SC)]** , the Supreme Court held that “even if the parties were not competent to enter into wedlock (when position itself is disputed) they have the right to live together even outside the wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that 'live-in is now relationship' recognised by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 8 5. In view of the proposition by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, we find that since the alleged detenue has attained majority, she has the right to live together with the 5[th] respondent and that cannot be said to be an illegal custody. Therefore, there is no circumstance, warranting invocation of writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this W.P. (Crl) is dismissed. **Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE** **sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** AMV/20/01/2020 WP(Crl.).No.11 OF 2020 9 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF DAUGHTER OF PETITIONER DATED 29.09.2012. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NIL DATED UNDER SECTION 15(7) OF CRL.P.C.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE**