E-Paper
Kerala’s spiritual healer wanted to free woman from parent’s custody. SC says no
The Supreme Court rejected a 53-year-old self-proclaimed healer’s requested to allow a 21-year-old woman decide if they wanted to stay with her parents or him. The bench, however, noted that the facts in this case did not inspire confidence in giving custody to the petitioner who has ‘doubtful antecedents’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down the plea of a 53-year-old spiritual healer in Kerala to free a 21-year-old woman from the custody of her parents claiming that they were in a spiritual live-in relationship for over two years.
The self-proclaimed healer, Kailas Natarajan, a doctor by profession, wanted the top court to apply the law laid down by it in March 2018 where an adult woman, Hadiya was allowed to go with her husband, Shafin Jahan, who she married despite opposition by her parents. In the landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that “parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married.”
Before the top court, senior advocate Gopal Shankaranaraynan appearing for Natarajan submitted that the petitioner does not seek the custody of the woman but being an adult, she should be permitted to take a decision of her choice. He claimed to be in what he described as a spiritual live-in relationship with the woman for two-and-a-half years.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana declined.
“This is not a case where we can permit the girl to go with the petitioner (Natarajan). The girl is in a very fragile state of mind. This man is married, has two children and once was charged under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act (on the complaint of abuse by a 14-year-old). Facts in this case are such that it does not inspire confidence in giving custody to the petitioner who has doubtful antecedents.”
Natarajan earlier petitioned the Kerala high court as well. But the high court also rejected his request on January 20 this year after interacting with the girl, The judges found her to be vulnerable and incapable of taking decisions. She exhibited signs of mental disturbance in demanding to stay with the petitioner. It was her depression that led her parents to approach the petitioner and seek cure. However, on the pretext of counseling her in solitude, Natarajan developed intimacy and claimed that she was his spiritual live-in-partner, although they never stayed together.
The court was conscious that such incidents where families are fighting spiritual gurus in court for custody of their child are not new. “You know the environment of our gurujis and swamis,” the bench remarked, recounting a recent public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a couple from Andhra Pradesh who were concerned that their daughter, who had studied abroad, was in a similar situation involving a spiritual guru.
There were other reasons too that made the court suspect the petitioner’s antecedents. He was separated from his wife and children, claimed to be a teacher of Vedic Yogashastra but was accused of misbehaving with a 14-year-old girl who came to his house for psychiatric treatment. Even the petitioner’s mother disapproved of his activities in the name of spirituality. Her statement given to the Kerala police was recorded by the high court in its judgment.
These grounds made the top court place full trust and confidence on the high court’s interaction with the girl and arrive at a conclusion that the custody of the girl with parents was not illegal and in her best interest.
The bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said that in India, unlike the West, parents tend to cover up mental problems of children. The judges referred to an identical case reported from the US a week ago without identifying the personality. Senior lawyer Shankarnaraynan told the court that the case was of American pop star Britney Spears. Due to her erratic behaviour, a local court in the US made her father in-charge of managing his daughter’s wealth and estate. “There the laws are different, culture is different. Unless and until a person consents, no treatment can be given,” said the bench.
In order to be satisfied about the 21-year-old woman’s welfare, the bench directed her to be produced before the District Judge after a month and a compliance report to be submitted to the court on her condition along with details of treatment given to her.
