Antony Dominic, J. Though by order dated 12/6/14, the case was referred for mediation, it is reported by both sides that the mediation failed.
2. Petitioner is the father of Harsha P. Ebrahim, whose date of birth is 8/9/2003. She lost her mother and was residing with the petitioner and the step mother. She was also studying in St.Augustine's Girls Higher Secondary School, Kothamangalam. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5, who are the sisters of his deceased wife, took the child from his custody during the holidays and that subsequently when he wanted to take the child back, they refused to return the child. This is alleged to be a case of illegal detention and on that basis this writ petition with the prayer for a writ of habeas corpus is filed.
3. On the filing of the writ petition, this Court passed order dated 6/6/14 directing production of the child before us. Notice was also issued to the respondents. Accordingly, respondents 3 to 5 entered appearance through counsel and the
W.P.(Crl.) No.237/14
: 2 :
child was also produced. Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the child was not comfortable with the step mother and they even alleged that the child was being ill treated by the step mother. It is stated that it was in such circumstances that, on the request of the child, they took the child. Further, he also submitted that the Child Welfare Committee, Malappuram has issued a direction to the school authorities to issue transfer certificate so that the child can be admitted in a school at Malappuram for her continued education.
4. We interacted with the child in the chambers and according to the child, her stay in the parental home after the death of her mother was uncomfortable and therefore, she left to the house of respondents 3 to 5. She also told us that she is desirous of continuing her education at Malappuram and that as at present, the same was not possible because the school authorities at Kothamangalam declined to issue transfer certificate on account of the objection raised by the petitioner.
5. Irrespective of the rival claims made by both sides in this petition filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are only concerned with the question whether the petitioner has
W.P.(Crl.) No.237/14
: 3 :
established that the child is in the illegal detention of the respondents as alleged by him. From the interaction with the child and the facts stated by respondents 3 to 5, we are not satisfied that this is a case of illegal detention. Therefore, we cannot entertain this writ petition. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in moving the concerned Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act.
Therefore, without prejudice to the legal remedies that are open to the parties, we dismiss this writ petition.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE