Kerala HC dismisses habeas plea of 'spiritual guru' for release of woman from parents custody


PTI | Kochi | Updated: 23-01-2021 18:34 IST | Created: 23-01-2021 18:06 IST
Kerala HC dismisses habeas plea of 'spiritual guru' for release of woman from parents custody
Representative image Image Credit: Wikimedia
  • Country:
  • India

The Kerala High Court has dismisseda habeas corpus plea filed by a 52-year-old man claiming to bea ''spiritual guru'' seeking release of a 21-year-old woman fromthe custody of her parents terming her as his ''spirituallive-in-partner''.

A Division Bench of the High Court, comprisingjustices K Vinod Chandran and M R Anitha, dismissed the pleaobserving that the ''antecedents'' of the man are ''not such asto trust him with the custody of a young girl of 21'' on merestatement of she being tutored, by him, in spirituality.

''This is especially so when the parents of thesubject had initially approached the petitioner with theirdaughter for psychiatric consultation and their trust in himas a doctor and therapist was breached to the extent of thepetitioner declaring his patient to be a live-in partner; whenhe himself was married with two children,'' the court said inits January 20 order.

In his plea, the man alleged illegal detentionof the woman by her own parents on the ground that he had alive-in relationship with her for the last two and half years.

The man moved the court as the live-inspiritual partner of the woman and does not speak of anymarriage between them.

The court, which interacted with the woman,also found that she was ''incapable of taking a decision forherself'' and directed her to be retained with her parents ather parental home.

''We in fact found nothing to remove the subjectfrom the custody of her parents; in her present mental state,which they are the best persons to address.'' ''We are not satisfied that the parents are in anymanner incapable of or dis-entitled from retaining custody oftheir daughter who though a major was showing signs of mentaldisturbance,'' said the judgement authored by Justice VinodChandran.

The man is said to have completed MBBS fromMedical College, Thiruvananthapuram and after his marriage toa woman in 2001, proceeded to the UK for post graduation inPsychiatry.

After returning, he initially pursued themedical profession, but later proclaimed himself to be a VedicYogacharya/Instructor.

The court noted that the man is also stated tohave not cooperated for a direct and detailed inquiry and wasunwilling to disclose his personal and professional details.

The petitioner claimed that he was getting feesand gifts from his followers and he had no other regular meansof income.

''On local inquiry it is reported that there isno information of the petitioner having any followers.It isreported that the petitioner is not leading a sociallyacceptable life and has difficulty in explaining the means andgoals of his spirituality,'' the court said.

In his plea, the man asserted he had a live-inrelationship with the woman for the last two-and-a-half yearsas spiritual partners.

The court observed that there was no allegationthat the parents had illegally removed the woman from theman's custody.

The man admitted he is married with twochildren but goes on to say that they are under the care andshelter of the petitioner, living separately, it said.

The court recalled its earlier interactionwith the woman wherein she categorically denied she wasmarried and asserted the relationship with the man to bedivine.

The court offered her assistance for counsellingand tried to persuade her to at least, at its behest, tointeract with a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst for it to get anexpert opinion,which she refused point blank, it said.

''We attempted such a course of action since thesubject, on our assessment, was incapable of taking a decisionfor herself and the parents too had raised serious concerns ofher obsessive behaviour which we too witnessed during ourinteraction,'' the court said.

In its judgment, the court cited the SupremeCourt's judgment in the Hadiya case holding that itsinteractions with the woman suggested that she was having''vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance.'' The court also referred to a passage from theHadiya case where the Supreme Court observed that there wasnothing to suggest that Hadiya suffered from any kind of''mental incapacity or vulnerability''.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback