Shivalal P. v Circle Inspector of Police Station House Officer, Alappuzha North Police Station; The District Police Chief, Alappuzha; The State Police Chief, Kerala Police Headquarters; Praveen Kumar.K.P.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHIVALAL.P., AGED 52 YEARS S/O PURUSHAN, DOOR NO.30/647, SREE NANDANAM,VIKAS NAGAR, PAZHA VEEDU, ALAPPUZHA-688 009.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION,PIN-688 012.** - **2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA-688 012.** - **3 STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 012.** - **4 PRAVEEN KUMAR.K.P, AGED 25 YEARS S/O PRASANNAKUMAR.K.P, KIZHAKKEKOOTATHIL HOUSE, KIDANGARA.P.O, VELIYANAD, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-686 102.** **R1-3 BY SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. P.T.DINESH** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Harilal, J** The petitioner herein is the father of the alleged detenue. This writ petition has been filed on the allegation that the alleged detenue, his daughter, by name Siva Parvathi, aged 22 years, is under the unlawful detention of the 4[th] respondent herein. 2. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the detenue has been produced before this Court and we have interacted with the detenue. The detenue submits that she is a major aged 22 years and she was in love with the 4[th] respondent herein. When the petitioner opposed the said WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 3 love affair, they have decided to get married at the earliest. Considering the objection from the part of the petitioner herein, she eloped with the 4[th] respondent on her own volition and now she is living together with the 4[th] respondent at Kattappana, Idukki district. 3. We are of the view that being a major aged 22 years the detenue has the right to live freely and independent in accordance with her will and wish. 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 WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 4 . remains, assume the role of _parens patriae_ Every citizen is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the 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”. The aforesaid view is reiterated in **Nandakumar v. State of Kerala** [ **2018 (2) KLT 783 (SC)]** , also. 4. Shri.S.Sanalkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction and power to interfere with the decision of the detenue in exercise of _parens patriae_ jurisdiction. We find that the courts have no _parens patriae_ jurisdiction in the case of a citizen, who attained WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 5 majority. Therefore, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner _in limine_ . We make it clear that in case of majors, the courts have no jurisdiction or power to dictate the person with whom they have to live and they are free to take a decision as they have right to do so. 5. One Jini Sunny filed I.A.No.1/2020 to get impleaded in this writ petition claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the 4[th] respondent herein. According to her, the 4[th] respondent is living with the detenue herein in denial of her conjugal right. 6. We are of the view that, if she is aggrieved by the denial of her conjugal rights, by the 4[th] WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 6 respondent she is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the Family Court and this judgment will not stand in the way of such proceedings. The scope and extent of enquiry under this writ of habeas corpus are confined to the question, whether the detenue is under the unlawful detention of 4[th] respondent, as alleged in the writ petition only. Hence, we find that the petitioner, who filed I.A.No.1/2020 is not a necessary party for the determination of the question in controversy involved in this writ petition. Hence, I.A.No.1/2020 would stand dismissed. 7. On the above analysis, we find that there is no circumstance warranting invocation of writ WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 7 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition would stand dismissed. **Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE** **sd/V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** AMV/29/02/2020 WP(Crl.).No.38 OF 2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ONE JINY SUNNY** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER SIVA PARVATHI BEFORE THE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2020 IN WP(CRL)NO 10/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.106/2020 REGISTERED BY THE NORTH POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE**