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
14 paragraphs · 293 wordsK. Vinod Chandran, J
he petitioner before this Court alleged that the daughter of the 4th respondent is in illegal custody. We had directed that a statement shall be
obtained by a Woman Police Officer without the presence of parents or any family members of the alleged detenue.
The statement is now filed before this Court along with a memo of the learned Government Pleader. It is stated in the report of the Sub Inspector
of Police, Sasthamcotta, that the alleged detenue was not found in her house and on an enquiry it was informed that she is in Dubai. The police officer
has talked to her on a video-call and the statement is produced herein.
We see from the statement that the daughter of the 4th respondent left India on 05.02.2021 even before the order was passed by us. She is a
B.Tech graduate and obviously she has gone to Dubai on a visiting visa to search for an employment. She says that though she had a relationship with
the petitioner, as of now, they have fallen apart and there is no existing relationship. The travel details of the daughter of the 4th respondent has also
been produced before us along with a memo.
On the learned counsel for the petitioner raising an apprehension about the video-call, we asked the learned Government Pleader as to whether the
transcript of the video call was available. The learned Senior Government Pleader showed us the transcript from his mobile. We have seen the
statement and we do not find anything suspicious in the statement spoken of by the daughter of the 4th respondent.
In such circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.