BY AD v. LAL K.JOSEPH

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI (IS SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 VIDE ORDER DATED 25/08/2023 IN WP (CRL) 861/2023 (S)), PIN - 110001 ELDO K. MATHEW AGED 51 YEARS AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE, EMPEROR EMMANUEL CHURCH, MURIYAD P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT (ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 IN I.A. NO.1/2023.), PIN - 680683 SRI.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.1371 OF 2023 3 ORDER Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024 Anu Sivaraman, J. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.

It is contended in the review petition that the statement in paragraph No.7 of the judgment to the effect that Ext.R5(k) judgment was placed on record to contend that this Court had interacted with the children and ascertained their wish to accompany the 4th respondent was an erroneous statement and that it was only on the basis of the said statement in Ext.R5(k) judgment that this Court had rendered the judgment stating that there is no illegal restraint or detention of the children by their father. The essential contention, therefore, is that the statement that the wishes of the children had been ascertained while passing Ext.R5(k) judgment was the reason for this Court to have reached the conclusion as have RP NO.1371 OF 2023 4 been expressed in the judgment.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that Ext.R5(k) judgment referred to a similar case as against the same church involved in this case. It is submitted that the reference to the ascertaining of the wishes of the children involved in this case in Ext.R5(k) judgment was therefore essentially an error.

We notice that Ext.R5(k) judgment was in respect of other parties. Therefore, the reference that the Court had interacted with the children and had ascertained their wish to accompany the 4 th respondent was an error which had occurred in the judgment under review. The said error is liable to be corrected.

We further notice that the judgment was one rendered in a W.P. (Crl.) which was filed seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to trace out and produce the alleged detenues before the Court. The alleged detenues were the two minor children of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. This Court found that the custody of the children with RP NO.1371 OF 2023 5 the father cannot be said to be illegal in view of Ext.P2 order of the Family Court and Ext.P3 judgment in O.P.(FC) No.108/2020. This Court had only considered whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the custody of the children with the 4th respondent can be said to be illegal detention. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the case which have been noticed by this Court in the judgment, the error in referring to Ext.R5(k) judgment will not make any difference to the decision of this Court. This review petition therefore fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not considered the contentions with regard to the right of the petitioner for custody of the children which are left open for consideration in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE NP RP NO.1371 OF 2023 6 APPENDIX OF RP 1371/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/10/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(CRL.) 861/2023 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL