AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 363 words\
Devan Ramachandran, J
The petitioner says that he has divorced his wife â€" the 4th respondent, as evident from Ext.P1; but that his daughter is illegally detained by her in
an undisclosed location. The petitioner asserts that the 4th respondent was living in “adultery†and continuing to do so with another person; and
therefore, that the custody of the child with her in future is detrimental to her interests. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the official respondents be
directed to produce the alleged detenue, along with the 4th respondent, before this Court.
We have heard Sri. P.K. Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the petitioner; as also the learned Government Pleader, Sri. Manuraj K.J.
The learned Government Pleader submitted that a memo has been filed on record, producing a statement from the Inspector of Police, Kannur. He
submitted that the statement clearly shows the address where the 4th respondent is presently residing and that on enquiry, she has said that she does
not even know that she was divorced by the petitioner. He added that the statement further says that the daughter of the petitioner did not even know
her father and did not want to go with him; that now she is safe and taken care of very well by her mother â€" the 4th respondent. He then showed us
that the statement also avers that the 4th respondent is presently living with one Sasikumar, whom the child now virtually recognises as her father.
When we consider the afore submissions, it is clear that the disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent are within the realm of issues
which should have been brought before the competent Family Court. However, the petitioner has approached this Court impelling a cause of action, as
if his daughter is illegally detained. As is clear from the statement on record, the child is in the custody of the mother and she is happy and safe.
Obviously, therefore, the petitioner will have to move the competent Family Court, if he requires any orders with respect to the custody of the child.
Reserving the afore liberty to the petitioner, we close this writ petition.