Whether Courts in India have jurisdiction to issue any writ to protect the welfare of its citizens beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the country.
we hold that the Courts in India have jurisdiction in the matter of protecting the best interest or welfare of a child or an incapable adult; if so warranted, in circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that the party who approached the Court has no legal remedy before that Court beyond Indian territory.
2023:KER:80740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO.1206 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
‘X’
BY ADVS.
JOHNSON GOMEZ
S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SANJAY JOHNSON
JOHN GOMEZ
ARUN JOHNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.
2 THE AMBASSADOR, EMBASSY OF INDIA,
ABU DHABI UAE, PLOT NO.10, SECTOR W-59/02, DIPLOMATIC
AREA EMBASSIES DISTRICT -
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.
3 STATE POLICE CHIEF,
KERALA POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695010.
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689645.
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOIPURAM POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689548.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:2:-
WP(CRL.) NO.1206 OF 2022
6 THE CHAIRPERSON, LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE,
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF
PERSONS WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL
RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES ACT, 1999,
PATHANAMTHITTA, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN – 689645.
7 ‘Y’
8 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX.
9 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
BY ADVS.MANU S., DSG OF INDIA
N.M.MADHU
C.S.RAJANI(K/2275/1999)
SHRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.M.SHAMEER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.10.2023,
ALONG WITH WP(C).42320/2022, THE COURT ON 14.12.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO.42320 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
‘X’
BY ADVS.
JOHNSON GOMEZ
S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SANJAY JOHNSON
JOHN GOMEZ
ARUN JOHNY
ANN MARIA SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.
2 THE AMBASSADOR, EMBASSY OF INDIA, ABU DHABI UAE, PLOT
NO.10, SECTOR W-59/02, DIPLOMATIC AREA EMBASSIES
DISTRICT - UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:4:-
WP(C) NO.42320 OF 2022
3 THE CHAIRPERSON, LOCAL LEVEL COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSONS WITH
AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND
MULTIPLE DISABILITIES ACT, 1999, PATHANAMTHITTA,
COLLECTORATE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN – 689645.
4 ‘Y’
5 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
6 XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU S., DSG OF INDIA
SRI.N.M.MADHU
SRI. C.S.RAJANI(K/2275/1999)
SHI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2023,
ALONG WITH WP(Crl.)NO.1206/2022, THE COURT ON 14/12/2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:5:-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022
& “C.R.”
W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2023
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These writ petitions are filed by the mother of XXXXX(
*)
(hereinafter referred to as the “incapable adult”) who is suffering from
autism spectrum disorder. W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 was filed for issuance
of a writ of habeas to produce the aforesaid incapable adult before this
Court. It proceeds on an allegation that the incapable adult has been
detained in illegal custody of his father against his wish and will in
Dubai. W.P.(C). No.42320/2022 was filed challenging an order of the
District Collector, Pathanamthitta, who is the Chairman of the Local
Level Committee constituted under the National Trust for the Welfare of
Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:6:-
Disabilities Act, 1999 (for short the “National Trust Act”), declining
the request made by the petitioner to appoint her as the legal guardian
of the incapable adult.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The petitioner married ‘Y’(
*) on 2/2/1998 in
accordance with Christian personal law. In that wedlock, two male
children were born. The elder child has now crossed the age of 21 years.
The younger incapable adult was born on 31/1/2003. The parties were in
Dubai, UAE. It seems that the incapable adult was diagnosed with
pervasive developmental disorder when he was two and half years old. He
was treated at NIMHANS, Bangalore. Finally, he was diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder. The incapable adult, XXXXX(
*) was in the company of
both his parents. Though it is stated that the married life of the
petitioner and husband was not happy from the initial phase of marital
life itself; as seen from various records, treatments were given to the
incapable adult and he was brought up in a family environment. The
matrimonial dispute never ended. The petitioner claims that she was
forced to travel back to India as she was subjected to domestic violence,
and she came back to India based on the orders passed by this Court to
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:7:-
obtain the passport from her estranged husband with the intervention of
the Indian Consulate. The petitioner approached the District Collector,
Pathanamthitta, to appoint her as a legal guardian under the National
Trust Act on 9/11/2021. Since it was not considered, the petitioner
approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.23474/2021. The said writ petition
was disposed of on 15/9/2022 directing the District Collector,
Pathanamthitta, to take a decision on the application filed by the
petitioner to appoint her as the legal guardian. This was considered
by the District Collector and on 29/9/2022 an order was passed rejecting
her request for the reason that the incapable adult is living in UAE and
holding that the National Trust Act cannot be applied beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of this country. While holding so, the District
Collector appreciated the requirement of the petitioner-mother to be the
legal guardian of the incapable adult. The petitioner, thereafter, filed
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 for issuance of a writ of habeas on 5/12/2022
alleging that the incapable adult is in the illegal custody of his
father. She filed the other writ petition challenging the order of the
District Collector, on 21/12/2022. Various orders were also passed by
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:8:-
this Court on 18/1/2023 and 23/12/2022 to allow interaction with the
incapable adult.
3. Taking note of the fact that this Court will have to decide
on a jurisdictional issue intertwined with the welfare of the autistic
person who is an international person and, currently a resident of
another foreign country, UAE, we appointed Adv.Anil Malhotra, a
Chandigarh-based lawyer to assist us. At the outset, we must state that
his assistance in this matter was immense. The notes of submission made
by him, based on research by Adv. Ankit Malhotra gave insight into the
law on the matter. We also heard Shri Johnson Gomez, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Shri N.M.Madhu, learned counsel for the respondent.
THE MAIN SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
4. The learned counsel Adv.Johnson Gomez for the petitioner
submitted that when the father of the incapable adult is acting against
that son, it has to be presumed that the incapable adult is in illegal
custody. According to him, medical intervention alone would not be
sufficient to protect the welfare of the incapable adult and the
incapable adult is having every right to be in the company of his mother.
Thus, the denial of the father of the incapable adult, not allowing the
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:9:-
mother to be in the company of the incapable adult warrants interference
through the constitutional courts.
5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the father of the incapable
adult, namely, Shri N.M.Madhu argued that the incapable adult is
comfortable with the father. It is submitted that the cruel and
irresponsible behaviour of the petitioner to the incapable adult, as
well as to his father resulted in matrimonial disputes. He pointed out
various instances of the cruel behaviour of the petitioner. It is
further argued that the petitioner abandoned the family and the incapable
adult. According to him, any presence of the petitioner in Dubai would
alter the comfortable environment enjoyed by the incapable adult. The
learned counsel also submitted that when the father is competent and
capable of taking care of the incapable adult, and as no adverse
circumstances exist to protect the welfare of the incapable adult, this
Court need not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned counsel
elaborating the arguments submitted that, this Court has no jurisdiction
to grant any relief invoking writ remedy.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae appeared online and elaborated
submissions based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:10:-
Child (UNCRC), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (UNCRPD), the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
and also with reference to the relevant provisions of National Trust
Act. He also requested this Court to make an amicable settlement of
disputes between parties through mediation. The learned Amicus Curiae
specifically addressed the question on jurisdiction and submitted that
the constitutional courts have jurisdiction to protect the welfare of
its citizens even in a foreign country.
WE FIND THE FOLLOWING POINTS ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE MATTER:
7(i). Whether Courts in India have jurisdiction to issue any writ
to protect the welfare of its citizens beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the country.
7(ii). In the circumstances of this case, whether the
petitioner is entitled to any relief in this matter.
JURISDICTION:
8. Jurisdiction in this matter has to be decided with reference
to the role of the State or the Court having responsibility for the
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:11:-
citizens of this country wherever they are, including extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the country. The children or incapable adults are deemed
to be vulnerable because of their incompetency to make decisions and to
protect their person or property. The origin of “parens patriae”
jurisdiction is traceable to the common law and the State has to act as
a substitute parent to protect the interest of the children or incapable
adults. On the advent of the Constitution, the State's power to further
the legitimate interest of its citizens, who are unable to care for
themselves is well recognized in its preamble and fundamental rights.
See the judgment of the Apex Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India, [(1990) 1 SCC 613]; para.35 therein reads as follows:
35. There is the concept known both in this country and abroad,
called parens patriae. Dr B.K. Mukherjea in his “Hindu Law of Religious
and Charitable Trust”, Tagore Law Lectures, Fifth Edition, at page 404,
referring to the concept of parens patriae, has noted that in English
law, the Crown as parens patriae is the constitutional protector of all
property subject to charitable trusts, such trusts being essentially
matters of public concern. Thus the position is that according to Indian
concept parens patriae doctrine recognized King as the protector of all
citizens and as parent. In Budhkaran Chaukhani v. Thakur Prosad Shah [AIR
1942 Cal 331 : 46 CWN 425] the position was explained by the Calcutta
High Court at page 318 of the report. The same position was reiterated
by the said High Court in Banku Behary Mondal v. Banku Behary Hazra [AIR
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:12:-
1943 Cal 203 : 47 CWN 89] at page 205 of the report. The position was
further elaborated and explained by the Madras High Court in Medai Dalavoi
T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar v. Medai Dalavoi Rajammal [AIR 1957 Mad 563 :
(1957) 2 MLJ 211] at page 567 of the report. This Court also recognized
the concept of parens patriae relying on the observations of Dr Mukherjea
aforesaid in Ram Saroop v. S.P. Sahi [1959 Supp 2 SCR 583 : AIR 1959 SC
951] at pages 598 and 599. In the “Words and Phrases” Permanent Edition,
Vol. 33 at page 99, it is stated that parens patriae is the inherent
power and authority of a legislature to provide protection to the person
and property of persons non sui juris, such as minor, insane, and
incompetent persons, but the words parens patriae meaning thereby ‘the
father of the country’, were applied originally to the King and are used
to designate the State referring to its sovereign power of guardianship
over persons under disability. (emphasis supplied) Parens patriae
jurisdiction, it has been explained, is the right of the sovereign and
imposes a duty on sovereign, in public interest, to protect persons under
disability who have no rightful protector. The connotation of the term
parens patriae differs from country to country, for instance, in England
it is the King, in America it is the people, etc. The Government is
within its duty to protect and to control persons under disability.
Conceptually, the parens patriae theory is the obligation of the State
to protect and takes into custody the rights and the privileges of its
citizens for dischargings its obligations. Our Constitution makes it
imperative for the State to secure to all its citizens the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution and where the citizens are not in a
position to assert and secure their rights, the State must come into
picture and protect and fight for the rights of the citizens. The Preamble
to the Constitution, read with the Directive Principles, Articles 38, 39
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:13:-
and 39-A enjoin the State to take up these responsibilities. It is the
protective measure to which the social welfare state is committed. It is
necessary for the State to ensure the fundamental rights in conjunction
with the Directive Principles of State Policy to effectively discharge
its obligation and for this purpose, if necessary, to deprive some rights
and privileges of the individual victims or their heirs to protect their
rights better and secure these further.
9. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310], the
Apex Court opined that the Court also comes within the meaning of State
under Article 12 of the Constitution. In that sense, the State as well
as the Court are bound to protect the best interest of its citizens, who
are incapable of making decisions themselves. The State or the Court
in that process, assumes the role of a parent, who otherwise would have
been competent to make a decision. In a matrimonial dispute affecting
a child or an incapable adult, the scope of enquiry is not on the rights
and duties of such disputants, but on the best interest or welfare of
the subject of such dispute. In that sense, this Court is called upon
in these matters to protect the interest of the incapable adult who is
living abroad (in UAE). There are different theories on jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in itself encompasses the power to adjudicate and the power
to enforce. The Court while giving relief must be in a position to
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:14:-
adjudicate and also in a position to enforce. In International Law, the
concept of jurisdiction is approached through various theories, and the
nationality principle is one such perspective. According to the
nationality principle of jurisdiction, “States possess an undisputed
right to extend the application of their laws to citizens (that is those
who have the nationality of the state), wherever they may be. This type
of jurisdiction has a longer history than jurisdiction based upon the
territorial principle. Rulers asserted jurisdiction over those who owed
allegiance to them even before the ruler's control over their land
territory was consolidated to the point where they could be said to
assert territorial jurisdiction”1. This nationality principle is also
incorporated specifically into our domestic law. Under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), a sovereign State is entitled to regulate the conduct of its
citizens beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India. Sections 3 and 4
of IPC address the extraterritorial jurisdiction of our country.
10. According to Section 3 of IPC, any person liable, by any
Indian law, to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be
dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed
1 Malcolm D.Evans, International Law, First Edition (2003), Oxford University Press, Page No.339
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:15:-
beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within
India.
11. Likewise, Section 75 of the Information Technology Act (IT
ACT) also incorporates provisions for extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Section 75 of the IT Act stipulates that the provisions of the IT Act
apply to offences committed outside India by any person, irrespective of
their nationality. This provision is based on nationality principle as
well as protective principle of jurisdiction.
12. In the matter of protecting the best interest of the child,
or the welfare of the incapable adult, the parens patriae rule would
apply and, on the same premise, the nationality principle would also
apply. This is based on the principles emanating from the statutory
provisions casting an obligation on the State to protect the best
interest of a child or the welfare of an incapable adult, as arising
from the obligations under the various United Nations Conventions made
into law such as, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the
National Trust Act etc. The UN conventions and these statutory provisions
place an obligation on the State to ensure that the persons with
disability enjoy the right to equality and community life equally with
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:16:-
others. The preamble of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and
the National Trust Act mentions that the enactment itself is to provide
protective and welfare measures to disabled persons and persons suffering
from mental disability. Since the parens patriae rule has to be read
into the statutory provision based on nationality principle, the State
is bound to take such measures as provided under the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act and the National Trust Act. If the provisions under
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and the National Trust Act
are not read to put onus on the State to protect ‘persons’ covered under
the respective enactments, the very object of the law will be defeated.
Law on State responsibility to protect its subjects obliges the State
to act not only within territorial limits but also beyond its territory.
It is to be emphasized that these laws are premised to honour human
rights, social security and welfare principles having universal value.
13. The learned Amicus Curiae, pointing out the role of the State
and the Court, argued that the Courts in India are bound to protect the
rights of citizens, if the State fails to perform its duty. He placed
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gaurav Kumar Bansal v.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:17:-
Union of India, [(2015) 2 SCC 130] wherein at para.9 it is held as
follows:
9. This Court is assigned the role of sentinel on the qui vive for
protection of rights of citizens and steps in, in exercise of power of
judicial review for protection of fundamental rights of the citizens, if
the State fails to perform its duty. At the same time, this Court cannot
assume the role of the executive to oversee the sensitive issue of
coordination with international agencies and bodies for securing release
of Indian citizens who are held hostages abroad, when it is shown that
the departments of the Government have not only taken cognizance of the
problem but also taken, in right earnest, whatever steps could be
possible. The issue of coordination at international level with foreign
countries and international bodies has to be left to the wisdom of experts
in the Government. It is not a case where the State has not shown any
concern for its citizens, but where unfortunate situation has come about
in spite of serious efforts. Handling of the situation requires expertise
and continuous efforts. It has not been pointed out as to what particular
direction can be issued in the circumstances. While safety and protection
of the lives and liberty of Indian citizens is also the concern of this
Court, the issue has to be dealt with at the level of the executive. From
the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is evident that
steps have been taken at various levels, though without complete success.
14. We already noted that this Court is now stepping into the
shoes of a parent, to protect the best interest and welfare of an
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:18:-
incapable adult who is an Indian citizen. It cannot be said that this
Court has no power to adjudicate.
15. India and UAE entered into a bilateral agreement on 25/10/1999
for judicial co-operation in civil and commercial matters for service of
summons, judicial documents, commission, execution of judgments,
arbitral awards, etc. It is pursuant to such agreement that the Central
Government issued a notification dated 17/01/2020. This agreement
recognizes the execution of the decree of both the countries as though
it is a domestic decree. The notification issued by the Central
Government dated 17/01/2020 is a declaratory notification.
16. This Court invoking writ jurisdiction is capable of passing
further orders to ensure compliance with the order as the State continues
to have control over its citizens who are living abroad, even if there
is no such bilateral agreement with the country where such citizens
reside. However, the Court should be circumspect to exercise jurisdiction
when the Court finds that the law of the foreign country can be invoked
to protect the welfare or best interest of the child or incapable adult.
There may be different circumstances related to the cases. If parties
are ordinarily residing in a foreign country and can avail legal remedy
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:19:-
in that foreign country, the courts in India shall not invoke such
jurisdiction to regulate the affairs of its citizens living beyond
territorial jurisdiction of the country. The Court steps into the shoes
of a parent invoking parens patriae jurisdiction, only in those
circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that jurisdiction of the
foreign country cannot be availed by the party concerned, due to lack
of laws or incapability of having legal remedy, or if one party is
deprived of availing legal remedy due to issues of domicile or
residentiary rights. When an efficacious alternate remedy is available,
the Court shall refrain from invoking its jurisdiction over the affairs
of its citizens who are living outside its territorial jurisdiction.
17. In conclusion, we hold that the Courts in India have
jurisdiction in the matter of protecting the best interest or welfare
of a child or an incapable adult; if so warranted, in circumstances where
the Court forms an opinion that the party who approached the Court has
no legal remedy before that Court beyond Indian territory.
IN RE INCAPABLE ADULT LIVING OUTSIDE INDIA - RELIEFS:
18. It has come out from the facts that the petitioner came down
to India consequent upon matrimonial dispute with her husband, the father
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:20:-
of the incapable adult. She was living in UAE and was with the incapable
adult for a long time. According to her, due to domestic violence, she
could not continue in UAE. She approached this Court in
W.P.(C).No.25380/2020 through her power of attorney holder for release
of her passport by her husband. Pending the writ petition, her passport
was released by her husband. Accordingly, she came down to India. Her
stand before this Court is that she would be able to travel back to Dubai
and have the company of the incapable adult. She submits that medical
intervention would not be sufficient for the well-being of the incapable
adult. It is submitted that she cannot move the courts of Dubai for any
relief as she is not domiciled there. We do not see any negative factors
that would deprive either parents of the incapable adult from having the
company of the incapable adult. For us, the question is, how can the
well-being of such incapable adult be protected? Nothing has been
brought before us to show that such relief regarding the best interest
or welfare of the incapable adult can be secured through laws applicable
in UAE. In the absence of any such contentions of the parties, we have
to examine the matter based on the measures that are required to protect
the interest of the incapable adult.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:21:-
19. In UNCRPD, ratified by India on 1/10/2007, it is the
obligation of the State to ensure that the children with disabilities
have equal rights with respect to family life with others and the State
is also bound to take measures to prevent concealment, abandonment,
neglect and segregation of children with disabilities [Article 23(3)].
In the same Convention, under Article 23(4), it mandates the State to
ensure that the child shall not be separated from his or her parents
against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial
review determine, in accordance with the applicable law and procedures
that such separation is necessary for the best interest of the child.
20. In tune with UNCRPD, the Indian Parliament enacted the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In this context Section 9 of the
above Act may be relevant, which reads as follows:
9. Home and family - (1) No child with disability shall be separated from
his or her parents on the ground of disability except on an order of
competent court, if required, in the best interest of the child.
21. Section 5 of the above Act also mandates that the persons
with disability shall have the right to live in the community. That
means, in the home, where he gets the care and protection of parents,
siblings etc. The Indian Courts by and large recognise joint parental
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:22:-
care to protect the welfare of the children. The learned Amicus Curiae
placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court and the
other Courts in India related to joint parenting and shared custody:
PARTICULARS CITATION
1
Yashita Sahu Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
AIR 2020 SC 577 – Child Welfare,
Visitation, Paras 17 to 22.
2
Savitha Seetharam Vs. Rajiv
Vijayasarathy Rathnam
AIR 2020 (4) Karnataka R 372 - Shared
Parenting, Paras 9, 10, 11, 15 & 32.
3
Tushar Vishnu Ubale Vs. Archana
Tushar Ubale
AIR 2016 BOM 88 – Joint Custody &
Shared Parenting, Paras 15, 17, 18,
19 & 20
4
Inderbir Singh Vs. Amandeep
Bains
2019(3) HLR 204 – Joint Parenting &
Shared Custody, Paras 20-21
5
Rajnish Sharma Vs. Kamal Kumar
& Anr.
Order dated 20.12.2021 (FAO 1378 of
2021) (High Court of Punjab and
Haryana) – Shared Parenting & Joint
Custody at interim stage
6
Aditi Bakht Vs. Abhishek Ahuja 2022(292) DLT 106 – Shared Parenting
& Joint Custody at interim stage.
22. In Re C (Adult Patient) [1994] 1 FCR 705 (Fam(Eng)) (Access:
Jurisdiction), the High Court Family Division in England opined that one
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:23:-
parent restricting the access of another to their mentally disabled adult
child is illegal. It is further opined that access to a child was the
companionship of a parent and the question of access was inextricably
tied up with the question of the child’s welfare. Interestingly, the
High Court went on to hold that under common law, a parent had the right
of access to an adult child who was a patient and interference by
custodial parent with the other parent's access to the child was capable
of being remedied by habeas corpus.
23. The incapable adult has every right to have the company of
both the parents. A competent Court alone can deprive such company as
seen from Section 9 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Indian Courts do not generally recognize issuance of habeas when custody
is with one of the parents; it only encourages interference with such
custody through orders of the Family Courts. The effective remedy
available under Indian law is to appoint a guardian under the National
Trust Act. Section 14 of the National Trust Act provides provisions for
appointment of a guardian for persons with disabilities. Section 15
enumerates the duties of guardian which includes taking care of such
persons with disabilities.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:24:-
24. The respondent father filed I.A.No.1/2023 in
W.P.(C).42320/2022 for interaction with the incapable adult.
According to the father, the incapable adult is enjoying the
unchanged environmental ecosystem for more than 10 years, and any
alteration in the ecosystem and environment would be detrimental
to the interest of the incapable adult. We do not find that such
interaction is necessary. We had in fact, on an earlier occasion
interacted with the father online. The incapable adult also
appeared online. We are sure that the incapable adult will not be
in a position to express any opinion in regard to his wellbeing. We note that the mother’s presence was there all along from
the childhood of the incapable adult. Though she had dispute with
her husband, she never extended it to deprive the incapable adult
of enjoying the company of his mother. We also note that the
petitioner mother is trained to take care of such differently abled
person. Therefore, we decline the request made by the father of
the incapable adult.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:25:-
25. The petitioner, in fact, approached the District Collector,
Pathanamthitta, to appoint her as a guardian. The District Collector
was convinced that the petitioner should be appointed as a guardian, but
refrained from passing an order noting that the incapable adult resides
in UAE and is beyond the jurisdiction of this country. We are of the
view that both parents be appointed as a joint guardian to take care of
the incapable adult till any competent court decides otherwise the
incompetency of either of the parents to take care of the incapable
adult. The incapable adult is having every right to be under the care
of his family and both parents. It may not be conducive for the
petitioner to reside along with her estranged husband to take care of
the incapable adult but nothing prevents her to have rotational custody
so as to allow the incapable adult to enjoy the care, love and protection
of both the parents. The separation of the petitioner from the incapable
adult in the light of law as above is illegal. Denial of access to one
parent is also illegal in the light of the statutory provisions under
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. In such circumstances, we
are of the view that the following orders would subserve the interest
of the incapable adult:
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:26:-
i. The petitioner will be entitled to cyclical custody of the
incapable adult from 5 P.M. every Friday till the following Thursday
5 P.M. on a rotational weekly basis.
ii. The incapable adult shall be handed over from the residence of
her husband- ‘Y’(
*) in UAE. However, this right is available to the
petitioner whenever she is in UAE.
iii. In the event her husband and the incapable adult visit India
during vacation, the same pattern of custody shall be followed.
iv. In the event, ‘Y’(
*) travels abroad leaving the incapable
adult in UAE or in India, the mother will have custody during the period
of absence of ‘Y’(
*).
v. The parties are also free to make joint agreement varying the
above cyclical arrangements on mutually agreed terms. In that event,
such agreement shall be produced before the District Collector,
Pathanamthitta, for the purpose of record.
vi. The Indian Consulate in Dubai shall ensure that this order is
complied with by ‘Y’(
*).
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:27:-
vii. In the light of the reliefs granted as above, we find no scope
for issuing a writ of habeas and, accordingly, W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 is
dismissed. W.P.(C).No.42320/2022 is allowed.
We record our deepest appreciation to the learned Amicus Curiae
Shri Anil Malhotra ably assisted by Adv.Ankit Malhotra who have devoted
considerable time in assisting us and have made valuable suggestions
from time to time. Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE
ms
(
*) parties’ details are masked.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:28:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETTER IN OP NO.
228134 DATED 10.06.2005 ISSUED BY DR SHEKHAR
SESHADRI CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST OF NIMHANS
BANGALORE, OUT PATIENT DEPARTMENT TO DR.
SRIDEVI HEGDE OF THE MANIPAL HOSPITAL.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED
30.05.2005 ISSUED BY DR JAYANTHINI ADDL.
PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, MADRAS MEDICAL
COLLEGE AND SR. CIVIL SURGEON TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03.08.2006
ISSUED BY V-EXCEL REMEDIAL CENTRE TO THE
DETENU.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 03.02.2007 ISSUED
BY NIPA BHUPTANI TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED
30.02.2008 ISSUED BY SITRALAI CHARITABLE
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
ASSESSMENT DATED 23.10.2008 ISSUED BY MELWIN
ISAAC, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.10.2008
ISSUED BY WE CAN CHENNAI TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN THE
YEAR 2010 - 2012 BY SILVER N SPRINGS NURSERY
AND PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHENNAI TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCTORS NOTE SHEET DATED
03.02.2011 ISSUED BY DR PERUMAL RC OF SHRI
RAMACHANDRAN HOSPITAL, TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY OCCUPATION
THERAPIST MELVIN ISAAC DATED 15.02.2012 TO THE
DETENU.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:29:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETTER DATED
25.06.2013 ISSUED BY ABU DHABI INTERNATIONAL
(PVT.) SCHOOL TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORTS ISSUED BY
FUTURE CENTRE SCHOOL TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
REPORT DATED 24.11.2016 ISSUED FROM FUTURE
REHABILITATION CENTRE TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
08.08.2020 PREPARED BY DR. SREEKUMAR NAIR TO
THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE PEOPLE OF DETERMINATION ID
CARD ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, UAE TO THE DETENU CERTIFYING
AUTISM.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT NO.
MB992430656AE DATED 12.10.2019 BETWEEN THE ABU
DHABI COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2020 IN
WP(C) NO. 25380 OF 2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT II, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
10/12/2020 AS PER COMMON ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.
3417/2020, CRL.MP NO.3420/2020 IN CRL.MP NO.
3416/2020 PASSED BY THE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP
CHATS FROM MAY TO OCTOBER OF 2021 BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.7.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:30:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN CRL MP NO. 2416/2020 BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
PATHNMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF XXXXX TAKEN
ON 30/01/2021, 18/02/2021 AND ON 01.06.2021.
EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
15/03/2021 ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRAKSH OF THE
NEW MEDICAL CENTRE HEALTHCARE TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT24(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
REPORT NO. MR NO. UD0400000157659 DATED
16/04/2021 ISSUED BY DR DANESH GOPALAN
CLINICAL PHYSIOLOGIST NMC ROYAL HOSPITAL UAE
TO THE DETENU.
EXHIBIT 24(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
22/12/2021 ISSUED BY DR. SHIVAPRASAD CHILD
PSYCHIATRIST, NEW MEDICAL CENTRE LLC.
EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 30/06/2021 IN CRIME
NO. 0732/2021 REGISTERED BY KOIPURAM POLICE
STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE OP TICKET DATED 04.02.2019
OF DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, CHRISTIAN MEDICAL
COLLEGE, VELLORE.
EXHIBIT P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE OFFICE OF DR.
PAUL RUSSEL.
EXHIBIT P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
08/11/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
NATIONAL TRUST ACT BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.6.
EXHIBIT P29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NORKAA3/365/2021-NORKA DATED 05.08.2021 ISSUED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE AMBASSADOR,
EMBASSY OF INDIA, UAE.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:31:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXHIBIT P30 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAILS STARTING FROM
19.07.2021 TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P31 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE
GRIEVANCE CELL DATED 29.07.2021 ON THE
CONSULAR SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
EXHIBIT P32 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION WITH
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NRI CELL
REGARDING REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THEM
DATED 28.07.2021 AND 02.08.2021.
EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL THREAD DATED
19.07.2021 AND 23.07.2021 TO THE DGP OF KERALA
POLICE.
EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 20.07.2021 TO
THE HON'BLE MINISTER MR. MURALEEDHARAN, UNION
MINISTER OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS &
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS.
EXHIBIT P35 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17TH NOVEMBER
2021 IN WP(C) NO. 23474 OF 2021 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P36 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER AS PER THE DIRECTION OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.11.2021.
EXHIBIT P37 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
25.01.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 23474 OF 2021 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P38 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
INDIAN EMBASSY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 23474/2021.
EXHIBIT P39 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
28/02/2022 ISSUED BY UMESH CHANDRAN, MANAGER
MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION, AHALIA HOSPITAL TO MS.
RISHA OBERAI, SECOND SECRETARY, COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS & ECONOMIC, EMBASSY OF INDIA.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:32:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXHIBIT P40 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/09/2022
IN WP(C) NO. 23474/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P41 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DCPTA/4377/2021-
D2 DATED 29/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO. 6 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P42 A TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BY
THE FAMILY COURT PATHANMTHITTA PER ORDER DATED
16/07/2022 IN IA NO. 1/2022 IN OP NO. 802 OF
2022.
EXHIBIT P43 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE III ISSUED ON
22/06/2022 BY THE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND
NURSING AUSTRALIA.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R7 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE WHATSAPP
MESSAGES SEND TO THE WARD'S PHONE BY THE WRIT
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R7 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
21.12.2020 ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRAKASH,
CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST OF NEW MEDICAL CENTRE,
DUBAI.
EXT.R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 22.12.2021 ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRAKASH,
NEW MEDICAL CENTRE, LLC -DUBAI.
EXT.R7(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
21.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE DUBAI HEALTH CARE
AUTHORITY.
EXT.R7(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
12.10.2021.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:33:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXT.R7(H) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ABU
DHABI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, FAMILY SECTION
113/2021.
EXT.R7(I) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED FINAL JUDGMENT WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN 658/2021 PASSED BY THE
ABU DHABI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
EXT.R7(J) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED
21.12.2022 ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRAKASH, NEW
MEDICAL CENTRE, LLC, DUBAI.
EXT.R7(K) TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORT ISSUED BY
FUTURE REHABILITATION CENRE.
EXT.R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE EMPLOYER OF THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT.
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P 44 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DATED 18/12/2022,
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
EXHIBIT P 45 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY EMAIL DATED
20/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT P 46 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DATED 31/12/2022,
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7
EXHIBIT P 47 .A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DATED 07/01/2023,
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7
EXHIBIT P 48 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DATED 08/01/2023,
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
EXHIBIT P 49 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS DATED 14/01/2023,
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:34:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXHIBIT P50 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE
NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN
HER MOBILE THOUGHT 'ALHOSH APP' BETWEEN
22.01.2021 TO 08.06.2021 TO 14.10.2021.
RELATING TO COVID 19 TEST RESULT
EXHIBIT P51 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE
NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN
HER MOBILE THOUGHT 'ALHOSH APP' BETWEEN
12.06.2021 TO 14.10.2021 RELATING TO COVID 19
TEST RESULT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(A) THE RECORDS OF THE MEETING DATE AND TIME.
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P52 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CRL M.P NO.
94025/2023 IN SLP (CRL) NO. 2205 OF 2023
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P53 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 08/05/2023 SENT
BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT TO THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P54 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/05/2023 IN
APPEAL (CRL.) NO.2205/2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(L) TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT PROGRESS REPORT DATED
20.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE FUTURE REHABILITATION
CENTRE, ABU DHABI.
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P55 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP NO.
2158 OF 2023 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P56 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1261 OF 2023 OF
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION REGISTERED AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT NO.7.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:35:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R7(M) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VIDEO CONFERENCE OF SEVERAL
DAYS.
EXT. R7(N) TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT PROGRESS REPORT DATED
20.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE FUTURE REHABILITATION
CENTRE.
EXT. R7 (O) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.05.2023 FILED BY THE POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P57 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
17/02/2023 IN SLP (CRL) NO. 2205/2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P58 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED
16/03/2023, SUBMITTED BY THE CLINICAL
PSYCHOLOGIST AT ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL,
ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
02.08.2023 RECEIVED FROM THE SECOND SECRETARY,
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PRESS, INFORMATION.
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P59 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/07/1442H
CORRESPONDING TO 17/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE ABU
DHABI COURT FOR FAMILY, CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SUITS/ PERSONAL STATUS
DEPARTMENT-2 IN FILE NO. 383 OF 2021 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P60 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE NO. INV-OUT/301
DATED 31/12/2020 ISSUED BY ABDUL RAHIM AL
ZAROONI REAL ESTATE LLC TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:36:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXHIBIT P61 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 14/01/2021 AND
3/03/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.7 DRAWN ON
EMIRATES ISLAMIC BANK IN FAVOUR OF ABDUL RAHIM
AL ZAROONI REAL ESTATE LLC.
EXHIBIT P62 A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO. RV000104-AZ-2020
DATED 31/12/2020 ISSUED BY ABDUL RAHIM AL
ZAROONI REAL ESTATE LLC TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
EXHIBIT P63 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE
(FINAL BILL) DATED 24/0221 ISSUED BY DUBAI
ELECTRICITY & WATER AUTHORITY TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT P64 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENANCY CONTRACT NO.
202100217885 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPALITIES AND TRANSPORT TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.7.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R7 (P) TRUE COPY OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS FROM
31.01.2003 TO 16.03.2023.
EXT.R7 (Q) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
31.08.2020 SEND TO THE LANDLORD BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7 (R) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
24.01.2021 SENT TO THE LANDLORD BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7 (S) TRUE COPY OF THE ATTESTED TENANCY CONTRACT
DATED 17.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPALITIES AND TRANSPORT.
EXT.R7 (T) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.02.2021 FROM
NEW LANDLORD'S REPRESENTATIVE MS KATHERINE
DELIMA TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7 (U) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.03.2021
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:37:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1206/2022
EXT.R7 (V) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2021WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.R7 (W) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2021 IN
APPEAL NO.658/2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.R7 (X) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 07.07.2021
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.R7 (Y) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PRESENCE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE HOME ON
01.06.2021 AT 12.41 AM.
EXT.R7 (Z) TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CANCELLATION
CERTIFICATE DATE 13.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE
FEDERAL AUTHORITY OF IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP.
EXT.R7 (AA) TRUE COPY OF THE CASES NOTIFICATIONS DATED
16.11.2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.R7 (AB) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENCE OF THE
PETITIONER IN THE HOME ON 15.09.2021.
EXT.R7 (AC) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.01.2023
ISSUED BY THE FUTURE REHABILITATION CENTRE.
EXT.R7 (AD) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING SOME ACHIEVEMENTS AND
SKILLS OF XXXXX.
EXT.R7 (AE) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE VIDEO CALLS AND
MESSAGES MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO XXXXX.
EXT.R7 (AF) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MINISTRY'S
SPONSORSHIP FROM 01.11.2022 TO 31.10.2023.
EXT.R7 (AG) TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORT 2020-2021
ISSUED BY FUTURE REHABILITATION CENTRE.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:38:-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42320/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS FATHER BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15/09/2022 IN
WP C NO. 23474//2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT
NO. 3, LETTER NO. DCPTA/4377/2021-D2 DATED
29/11/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN WP(CRL) NO
1206/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DEED.
EXT.R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.12.2022
ISSUED BY DR. T.V. ANIL KUMAR, HOD, DEPARTMENT
OF PSYCHIATRY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE REF: 221007055565
DATED 10-2-2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ISSUED
BY CHIEF OF RASHIDIYYAH POLICE STATION, ABU
DHABI.
EXT.R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 12.10.2021.
EXT.R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE CHRONOLOGY OF
THE EVENTS PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CANCELLATION ISSUED
BY THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY FOR IDENTITY AND
CITIZENSHIP.
EXT.R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE FUTURE REHABILITATION CENTRE.
2023:KER:80740
W.P.(Crl).No.1206/2022 & W.P.(C).No.42320/2022
-:39:-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42320/2022
EXT.R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE YEAR
2021-22 ISSUED BY THE FUTURE REHABILITATION
CENTRE.
EXT.R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST MEDICAL REPORT DATED
12.12.2022 ISSUED BY DR. SIVA PRAKASH, NEW
MEDICAL CENTRE LLC, DUBAI.
EXT.R4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
ISSUED BY DR.DHANESH GOPALAN, NMC ROYAL HOSPITAL
LLC, ABU DHABI.
EXT.R4(L) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.12.2022 ISSUED
BY CLEOPATRA SPORT ACADEMY, DUBAI.
EXT.R4(M) TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORT ISSUED BY
FUTURE REHABILITATION CENTRE, ABU DHABI.
2023:KER:80740
