High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-02-14Disposed of with directions as stated in the ju...

Prashob Prathapan and Aleena Shahada v. Sub Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3927 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
N. Anil Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioners to appear before the first respondent on 16.02.2019 between 2 pm and 3 pm and to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day; police to ensure no unnecessary detention or harassment; second petitioner to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the man‑missing complaint as per law; registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode by fax for information and follow up action.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions as stated in the judgment (petition disposed with specific directions to appear, not to be unnecessarily detained, and for the second petitioner to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prashob Prathapan
Aleena Shahada

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode
State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vishnu Bhuvanendran
• A.K. Manu
• B. Anusree

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prashob Prathapan (Hindu) and Aleena Shahada (Christian) married on 2 February 2019 at Sree Narayanasramom, Peringottukara, Thrissur, and registered their marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. They sought relief from threats and summons by police following a ‘man-missing’ complaint after alleging coercion by Aleena’s family who had tried to arrange her engagement to another man. The petition challenges the police harassment and contends that they are living together by choice, a status that is increasingly recognized in law. The petition references Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (SC) (2006) directing compulsory registration of marriages and cites Deepu Dev v. State of Kerala (2012) to argue that all marriages should be registered irrespective of religion, while noting Deepu Dev’s factual distinction since that case involved a religious ceremony with a certificate from a religious authority. The court also acknowledges evolving recognition of live‑in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Section 2(f)), drawing on Indra Sarma and Shafin Jahan to emphasize personal autonomy and identity. Ultimately, the court disposes of the writ petition with directions to ensure appearance before authorities, non‑detention, and transmission of the order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Police Act - Section 57Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 - Section 15Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 - Rule 9(3)Special Marriage Act, 1954Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 2(f)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Live‑in relationships are recognised by legislation; not a crime or sin (Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma)
Expression of choice in accordance with law is acceptance of individual identity (Shafin Jahan v. Asokan.K.M. and others)
Registration of marriages should be compulsory after calling objections and suggestions (Seema v. Ashwani Kumar)
Deepu Dev v. State of Kerala distinguishes where religious ceremony with authority certificate exists; not applicable here

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they are a legally formed couple who chose to live together after a voluntary marriage on 2 February 2019, evidenced by Exts P1 (marriage certificate) and P2 (registration certificate). They allege coercion by Aleena’s family, leading to threats and a potential police summon. They contend that live‑in relationships are now recognized under modern law (citing Indra Sarma and Shafin Jahan) and that compulsory registration of marriages under Seema v. Ashwani Kumar should apply irrespective of religion. They argue that there is no valid basis to harass or detain them, particularly as they are adults who have chosen to live as a couple, and that police action should be guided by law rather than family pressure.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there is an ongoing man‑missing complaint and potential threats to the petitioners, with the police acting within their statutory remit. They rely on the existing registration framework and the need to balance individual rights with public order and the interests of Aleena’s family, as well as the procedural requirement to address the matter before a jurisdictional Magistrate. They also highlight that the petition does not establish a properly solemnized marriage under religious rites or under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and thus the Ext. P2 certificate may not conclusively evidence a legally recognised marriage under the current regime.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Seema v. Ashwani Kumar	2006(1) KLT 791 (SC)	Positive	Directs state governments to issue rules for mandatory registration of marriages after hearing objections, supporting the petitioners’ stance on registration irrespective of religion.
Deepu Dev v. State of Kerala	2012(2) KLT 594	Distinguished	The court distinguishes this case on its facts (religious ceremony with certificate from a religious authority) and holds it not applicable to the present case.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma	(2013) 15 SCC 755	Positive	Affirms that live‑in or marriage‑like relationships are not crimes and that personal choice is highly protected.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan.K.M. and others	AIR 2018 SC 1933	Positive	States that expression of choice in accordance with law signifies acceptance of individual identity; supports autonomy in personal relationships.

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 Prashob Prathapan and Aleena Shahada v. Sub Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode and State of Kerala 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **THURSDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 3927 of 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 PRASHOB PRATHAPAN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O DOLLY PRATHAPAN, PANDATH HOUSE, KARYAMUTROM P.O., MURIYAMTHOD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 ALEENA SHAHADA, AGED 23 YEARS W/O PRASHOB PRATHAPAN,SADHU MAHAL, PALLITHAZHAM, P.O. MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673007.** **BY ADVS. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SRI.A.K.MANU SMT.B.ANUSREE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673011. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-2-: ## **JUDGMENT** ## **N.ANIL KUMAR,J** The first petitioner belongs to the Hindu religion and the second petitioner is a Christian. It is stated that on 2.2.2019, the petitioners married at Sree Narayanasramom, Peringottukara Thrissur. Ext.P1 is the certificate of marriage issued by the Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust. The petitioners also registered their marriage before the Registrar, Thanniyam Grama Panchayath on 6.2.2019 in accordance with the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the Department of Panchayats, Government of Kerala. 2. According to the petitioners, there were strong objections from the side of the second petitioner's family for the marriage and the second petitioner's family had coerced and threatened her to marry another person from Malappuram for which an engagement function was arranged at Manjeri on 30.1.2019. Her father made her believe that they were going to attend the marriage of one of his friend's daughter and when they arrived at V.P. Convention Centre, Manjeri, out of threatening from the side of her father, she was WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-3-: constrained to dress herself in confidence for the engagement function. While so, on 2.2.2019, the second petitioner left her parental house and married the first petitioner. After the marriage, the petitioners went to Hyderabad and were leading a happy life there. Consequent to a 'man-missing' case registered at Nadakkavu Police Station, it is alleged that the second respondent is frequently contacting the first petitioner directing him to surrender before the Nadakkavu Police Station at the earliest. Petitioners bonafide apprehend that in case they surrender before the Nadakkavu Police Station, the first respondent may brutally manhandle the petitioners at the instance of the second petitioner's family. Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition directing the first respondent not to threaten and harass them by repeatedly summoning them to the Police Station. 3. The Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 14.2.2006 in **Seema** v. **Ashwani Kumar** [2006(1) KLT 791 (SC)] has directed all State Governments to issue rules for making registration of marriages solemnised in the respective States compulsorily be registered irrespective of the religion after calling objections and suggestions. The Government of Kerala, after considering all objections and suggestions published “the Kerala Registration of WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-4-: Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008”. As per Section 15 of the Rules, after the commencement of the Rules, the Government shall not accept for any purpose, any certificate of marriage issued by any authority other than those authorised under the rules or under any other statutory provisions. Rule 9(3) of the Rules inter alia provides that in the case of a marriage solemnised as per religious rites, a copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the religious authority concerned may be a document in proof of marriage for registration of the marriage. In the case at hand, the first petitioner belongs to the Hindu religion and the second petitioner belongs to the Muslim religion. The pleadings in support of the writ petition do not indicate that the petitioners underwent a legal marriage in accordance with religious rites and ceremonies. The marriage was also not performed in accordance with the Special Marriage Act,1954. Under the circumstances, it is not evident that the marriage was solemnised as per religious rites and that Ext.P2 is a certificate evidencing valid marriage between the parties. Relying upon the decision in **Deepu Dev** v. **State of Kerala** [2012(2) KLT 594], it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all marriages are compulsorily registered irrespective of the religion of the parties. In **Deepu Dev's case,** the marriage was solemnised as per religious rites and that the WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-5-: parties had produced the certificate of marriage issued by the religious authority concerned. Hence, the dictum laid down therein is not applicable in this case. 4. In the case at hand, the perception of second petitioner's family that there has been violation of their right to protect the interest of second petitioner but their view point cannot be permitted to curtail the fundamental rights of the second petitioner, who out of her own volition, decided to live with the first petitioner. Live in relationships are now even recognised by the legislation. Now they have found a place under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. In **Indra Sarma** v. **V.K.V.Sarma** [(2013) 15 SCC 755], the Supreme Court held that live in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country and the decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal. It is sufficient that both the parties are living together. 5. In **Shafin Jahan** v. **Asokan.K.M. and others** [AIR 2018 SC 1933], the Apex Court held that expression of choice in accordance with law is acceptance of individual identity. In the case at hand, the petitioners have attained majority and they are entitled to lead their life exactly as they please. WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-6-: 6. On going through the facts of the case, it is clear that the Police has registered a 'manmissing' case under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the Police registered a case under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act and the case is pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Hence, it is within the realm of the petitioner to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording her statement. The second petitioner has not appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate so far. Merely because the petitioners are living together voluntarily, the same itself is not sufficient to close the complaint. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of as hereinbelow:- - i) The petitioners shall appear before the first respondent on 16.2.2019 between 2 pm and 3 pm and the first respondent shall produce the second petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day itself before 5 pm. - ii) The first respondent shall ensure that the petitioners shall not be unnecessarily detained or questioned in the presence of second petitioner's family or anybody else. - iii) The first respondent shall produce the second petitioner WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-7-: before the jurisdictional Magistrate to take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to the 'man-missing' complaint filed by the second petitioner's father. - iv) Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode by fax for information and necessary follow up action. Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** , JUDGE sd/- **N.ANIL KUMAR** , JUDGE MBS/ WP(C) NO.3927 OF 2019 :-8-: ## **APPENDIX** ||**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONERS' **|**EXHIBITS:**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE**| ||**CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS DATED**| ||**2.2.2019**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF**| ||**MARRIAGE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF**| ||**PANCHAYATHS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED**| ||**6.2.2019**|