HC Grants Police Protection to 18 yr Girl from 'Lover' with whom she Eloped disregarding Wishes of Parents [Case Law]

Free thought and independent action has its significance in the advancement of human communities; but the pitfalls of life cannot be ignored and the role of parents in guiding young minds; though having attained the legal age of majority cannot be discounted. We as a society err in confusing maturity with majority.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.

WP(C) No.15192 of 2018

Dated this the 13th day of June, 2018 
PETITIONER(S)

XXX

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.P.R.VIBHU SMT.NIDHI RAVINDRAN SRI.M.YOHANNAN SRI.D.THILAKAN SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED 

RESPONDENT(S)

1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE - 673 004.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEYPORE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 015.
3. AKHIL.V
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SURESH BABU THOMAS, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER


J U D G M E N T

Vinod Chandran, J.
An unfortunate incident, the cause of which is now prevalent in society, is projected in this case. We are constrained to make some observations, especially having been regularly faced with habeas corpus petitions and police protection matters, where young girls in total disregard to their parents wishes walk away with men with whom they say they have fallen in love. We have frequently come across instances where the children produced before this Court turn their backs on their own parents and even refuse to talk to them, after having eloped with the man of their choice.
2. Here is a classic case, which originated with a man missing complaint wherein the petitioner was found missing from her home. A crime was registered, the details of which we do not wish to disclose here for reason of our concern in divulging the identity of the petitioner. The petitioner, an 18 year old student of B.A.(English literature), who had been living with her father, mother and a married elder sister, fell in love with her neighbour. On attaining the age of 18, it is averred that the third respondent compelled her to elope with him. The parents concerned for the daughter immediately filed a complaint before the police, upon which a man missing case was registered. The petitioner admits that she was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom she voluntarily submitted that she should be allowed to go with the third respondent. On 23.10.2017, the relatives of the third respondent took her to Arya Samajam Centre, Kozhikkode and got her married to the third respondent. It is further contended that though the initial days went off well, troubles started immediately thereafter and the petitioner realised that her husband is a drug addict and has absolutely no employment. The petitioner herself submits that the third respondent is a driver and owns a jeep; but does not go for work and has turned a ganja peddler for easy money. The petitioner in the short period in which she was married to the third respondent suffered a miscarriage due to the physical assault on her by the third respondent. The parents of the third respondent cannot control him and themselves live in mortal fear. Now, the petitioner is back with her parents, who willingly took her back. She has now approached this Court with a request for police protection against the third respondent with whom she fell in love and eloped disregarding the wishes of her parents. We have to say this much, especially looking at the various other instances which come before this Court and as responsible citizens as also parents, we cannot but express our anguish. Free thought and independent action has its significance in the advancement of human communities; but the pitfalls of life cannot be ignored and the role of parents in guiding young minds; though having attained the legal age of majority cannot be discounted. We as a society err in confusing maturity with majority.
3. That apart, we cannot ignore the apprehension of the petitioner, especially looking at the various reports that come in the newspapers regarding marital discords leading to assault and even murder of spouses, in-laws and innocent children. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition showing the address at Kozhikode. However, the learned Senior Government Pleader submits on instructions that on enquiry there is nobody residing in the said address and the petitioner is said to be now residing at Ernakulam. In any event, if the petitioner raises a complaint before any of the Station House Officers in which jurisdiction the petitioner is residing, the said Station House Officer shall immediately ensure protection to the petitioner.
Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the District Police Chief, Kozhikode City and Ernakulam City, who shall immediately communicate the directions to the Station House Officers in their jurisdiction. The judgment shall be uploaded in the Court website with the name and address of the petitioner shown only as 'xxx'. The Registry however while communicating certified copy of the judgment shall inform the name and address of the petitioner to the concerned Police Chief who shall intimate it to the SHO's. The writ petition is allowed.