Antony George Penson vs State of Kerala and Others

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the production of the bodies of his wife Jeena Mary K.J. and his minor daughter Judith Anika on the allegation that Jeena Mary K.J. and Judith Anika are illegally detained and confined in the custody of respondents 4 to 6, the brother and parents respectively of Jeena Mary K.J. On considering this Writ Petition for admission, we issued notice by special messenger to R4 to R6 and issued rule nisi directing R4 to R6 to produce Jeena Mary K.J. along with Judith Anika, the minor child before this Court at 10.15 a.m. and show cause why the order for production should not be made absolute. Accordingly, Jeena Mary K.J. along with the child Judith Anika are present before us. In fact the police summoned Jeena Mary K.J. to the police station and recorded her statement and the police have accompanied Jeena Mary K.J. and her parents over to this Court. We interacted in detail with Jeena Mary K.J. She told us that the allegation that she is being illegally detained by her parents and brother is absolutely unfounded. She left the matrimonial home on account of the cruel treatment meted out to her by the petitioner. She found life with the petitioner totally miserable and she had no option other than to leave him. She has already filed an original petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

We interacted with the petitioner Antony George Penson also. He submitted that respondents 5 and 6, his parents in law are not permitting him even to talk to his wife Jeena Mary K.J. He has an apprehension that some danger will befall on them if the wife and child are allowed to continue with his parents-in-law.

Sri. B. Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for R4 to R6 submitted that it is suppressing material facts that the present Writ Petition has been filed. The pendency of a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty by the petitioner has been suppressed.

Sri. Mathai Eapen Vettath as well as the petitioner himself told us that the petitioner received notice of the Original Petition for divorce filed by Jeena Mary K.J. only yesterday. The petitioner, however had no answer to give when we enquired of him as to why the institution of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by him is not disclosed. The only question which we are called upon to decide in this Writ Petition is whether Jeena Mary K.J. and the minor child Judith Anika are under illegal detention of respondents 4 to 6. Having interacted with Jeena Marry K.J., we are convinced that the above question can be answered only in the negative. We do so. We dismiss this Writ Petition making it clear that if the petitioner is sincerely desirous of having the custody of the minor child or restitution of conjugal rights he has to seek and obtain such relief from the Family Court which has already been moved.