Kerala Excessive Court docket Dismisses Habeas Plea Of ‘Non secular Guru’ For Launch Of Girl From Father or mother’s Custody

The Kerala Supreme Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition by a man claiming to be a “spiritual guru” seeking the release of hers from custody of a 21-year-old woman who is believed to be his “spiritual partner” Parents (Dr Kailas Natarajan v Kerala State and others).

A department bank of Judges K Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha rejected the petition after determining that the woman “was unable to make a decision for herself” and that her “parents were best equipped for their current situation.” were”.

In particular, the departmental bank distinguished the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hadiya case, noting that her interactions with the woman indicated that she had “a mental health vulnerability.”

Judge Vinod Chandran’s verdict was based on a passage from the Hadiya case in which the Supreme Court found that there was nothing to suggest that Hadiya suffered from any kind of “mental incapacity or vulnerability”.

In the present case, however, based on her interactions with the woman, the bank believed that the woman was in a vulnerable mental state

“We note that, based on our interaction with the issue, there was an indication of a mental health vulnerability that led us to decline the exceptional Article 226 remedy,” the Court found.

The habeas corpus application was submitted by a 52-year-old man who claimed to have renounced worldly life and separated from his wife and daughters ten years ago. He claimed the woman was his “spiritual partner and yoga shishya” and claimed that she was illegally imprisoned by her parents.

On January 4, after private interaction with the Detenu, the department bank had observed the following:

“We weren’t happy that the subject is able to make a decision, especially by the way she interacted with us.”

The High Court found in its injunction that the Detenu wore vermilion on her head, like married women did. She said she was illegally detained by her parents. Although she complained about domestic violence, the High Court found that there was no such evidence.

The Detenu’s parents told the court that they were disaffected with the petitioner’s behavior and that their daughter was showing signs of hysteria and psychiatric problems. According to them, the petitioner insisted on solitary sessions with her daughter under the guise of counseling and therapy, after which she developed an obsessive bond with the petitioner. The parents believe that their obsessive thoughts are not normal and that it needs treatment

The High Court had requested a police report on the petitioner’s ID. In response to a local request, it was reported that there was no information that the petitioner had supporters. It is reported that the petitioner does not lead a socially acceptable life and has difficulty explaining the means and ends of his spirituality. The Court also found that the petitioner did not produce anything to prove his claim that he was a “spiritual guru”.

The police also reported that the petitioner’s mother expressed doubts about the petitioner’s spiritual activities and was not convinced of his so-called spiritual life. Police also reported that the petitioner was charged in a 2013 POCSO-registered case after a 14-year-old girl accused him of sexually abusing him on the pretext of counseling. However, during the investigation she withdrew from the allegation and in the absence of any other factual evidence other than her testimony, the petitioner was removed from the list of defendants.

The High Court found that he had tried to persuade the woman to speak to a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst about an opinion. However, she refused at close range.

“We tried such an approach because we felt the issue was unable to make a decision for itself, and the parents had also raised serious concerns about their obsessive behavior, which we too saw during our interaction. We find no good reason to compromise our earlier opinion in our decision of January 4th, 2021. We also found that there was no visible evidence of physical violence on this topic and their allegations were very vague, “stated the HC.

The HC noted that the patriae responsibility of the parents is normally invoked in matters of custody, but there are exceptional cases where it can also be exercised in other cases.

“A mentally ill person, if produced in court, and cases in which underage girls flee and are in production are afraid to go with their parents, are treated as exceptional situations,” said the HC.

“We are not satisfied that the parents are in any way unable or not entitled to maintain custody of their daughter; although one major showed signs of a mental disorder,” the court added.

Although the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court against the HC’s interim injunction on January 11, the Supreme Court declined to interfere.

The petitioner’s identity cards are in doubt

The High Court found that the petitioner came into contact with the woman during psychiatric consultations initiated by her parents. The court was not aware of the fact that the petitioner had violated the trust placed in him by declaring his patient to be a “partner”.

“We were also of the opinion that the ancestors of the petitioner would not be able to entrust him with custody of a young girl of 21 years old simply by declaring that she would be taught; by the petitioner in spirituality. This is especially true when the petitioner The subject’s parents had initially turned to the petitioner with their daughter for psychiatric advice, and their trust in him as a doctor and therapist was violated when the petitioner declared his patient to be his life partner when he himself was married to two children “.

Click here to read / download the verdict

Comments are closed.