IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 384 of 2010(S)
1. P.ANEESH, S/O.SIVADASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY,HOME AFFAIRS,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
7. CHACKO M., MANI, DIRECTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :15/12/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(Crl) No.384 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of various
orders passed by this Court resting with our order dated
30.11.2010.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this
petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace
and produce Ms.Betty Anu Chacko, a young woman now aged
above 24 years (date of birth – 01.05.1986). She is a B.E (Bio
Technology) graduate. She is the daughter of the 7th respondent.
The petitioner and the said Betty Anu Chacko, the alleged
detenue, were in love. Their relationship did not have the
approval of their parents. They belong to two different religions.
On 24.02.2006 vide Ext.P1 certificate of marriage, their
marriage had taken place at the Arya Samaj (Vedic Church),
Kozhikode. Thereafter they are legally wedded spouses. But the
alleged detenue was taken away by her father, the 7th respondent
to his place of employment at Muscat. The petitioner alleged
that the alleged detenue was being illegally detained and
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 2
confined by the 7th respondent. According to him, the alleged
detenue had complained to him many times that she was being
illegally detained and confined. The petitioner, in these
circumstances, prayed that a writ of habeas corpus may be
issued to cause the production of the alleged detenue and she
may be permitted to be at liberty and to join him.
3. The alleged detenue was not produced earlier. This
Court had to pass orders from time to time to oblige the 7th
respondent to ensure appearance of the alleged detenue before
Court. On 30.11.2010, it was undertaken by the 7th respondent
that the alleged detenue shall be produced before Court today.
4. Today when the case came up for hearing, the
petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Along
with him, his mother, his brother, his sister and his brother in
law have also come to Court. The 7th respondent is present in
Court along with his son Brian Chacko. The 7th respondent is also
represented by his counsel. A friend of his also accompanies the
7th respondent. The alleged detenue has also been brought to
Court by the 7th respondent.
5. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in
the custody of the 7th respondent, who allegedly is detaining and
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 3
confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the
Chamber with no opportunity for the 7th respondent to influence
her. In response to her request, we permitted the petitioner to
interact with her during the pre lunch session.
6. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged
detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her father and
brother. Later we interacted with the alleged detenue in the
presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we had interactions
with all concerned jointly. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and the learned
Government Pleader were also present.
7. The alleged detenue states before us categorically
that she is in love with the petitioner. She has already got
married to him. Ext.P1 is the certificate of marriage. She wants
now to join the petitioner and live as husband and wife. The
relatives of the petitioner agree and accept that they recognise
the alleged detenue as the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.
The 7th respondent and his son have reservations and are unable
to accept the decision of the alleged detenue to live as the wife
of the petitioner. But they agree that if that is the decision of the
alleged detenue, they will accept the said decision.
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 4
8. The 7th respondent requests and the alleged detenue
and the petitioner accept that notwithstanding the form of a
marriage undergone by the petitioner and the alleged detenue as
evidenced by Ext.P1, they shall take necessary steps to get the
marriage solemnised and registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act. They agree to produce
the certificate of marriage issued under the Special Marriage Act
if sufficient time is given to them. The petitioner as well as his
mother and siblings accept that they will not stand against the
alleged detenue following her Christian faith if she wants to do
that and that they shall not in any way object to such practices
by her. They further agree that they do not expect to get any
money, ornaments or property on account of this marriage
between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. The alleged
detenue also states that she is aware and she does not want to
claim any money, ornaments or property from her parents on
account of this marriage.
9. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we
are primarily concerned with the response of the alleged
detenue. She does not want this Court to take any action against
her father, the 7th respondent, or other relatives. But she asserts
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 5
that she wants to return from Court along with the petitioner.
We are satisfied that the decisional autonomy of the alleged
detenue, an educated woman, aged above 24 years, has got to be
respected by this Court. We do so. We are satisfied that this
Writ Petition can, in these circumstances, be allowed.
10. In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is allowed;
b) The alleged detenue Betty Anu Chacko is permitted to
leave the Court along with the petitioner as desired by her;
c) The petitioner and the alleged detenue undertake and
agree before us that they shall get their marriage solemnised
and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act and produce the marriage certificate before us by
the next date of posting along with a copy thereof to be
furnished to the 7th respondent;
d) We record the submission of the petitioner and other
members of his family that they shall not in any way object to the
alleged detenue following whatever religious practices that she
wants to follow and that they shall not in any way interfere with
such options of the alleged detenue;
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 6
e) We record the submission of the petitioner, his mother
and other siblings that they do not expect any property, money
or ornaments from the parents of the alleged detenue and that
there shall be no demands whatsoever from them for such
money, ornaments or property.
11. The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court
along with the petitioner. We post the case to 27.01.2011 for
production of the marriage certificate under the Special
Marriage Act. The petitioner and the alleged detenue shall
appear before this Court with the certificate along with a copy
thereof for being furnished to the 7th respondent;
12. Passport of the alleged detenue is handed over to her
by the 7th respondent in our presence. It is submitted that most
of the educational certificates are already in the possession of
the alleged detenue. If anything is left out, the 7th respondent
undertakes to hand over the same to the alleged detenue on the
next date of posting.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 7
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 8
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(Crl) No.384 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
Note by the Registry shows that the 7th respondent has
already been served. There is no appearance for the 7th
respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that no
crime has so far been registered on the allegation that the
alleged detenue is being illegally detained by the 7th respondent.
The learned A.S.G.I submits that he has received instructions
from respondents 6, 8 and 9 and prays for time till 29.11.2010 to
file statement.
2. We accept the request of the learned A.S.G.I. Call on
30.11.2010 for the statement of respondents 6, 8 and 9. A copy
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 9
of the statement shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the
petitioner on 29.11.2010.
3. Call on 30.11.2010.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 10
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
—————————————————–
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010
—————————————————-
Dated this the 24th day of November 2010
ORDER
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for
issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce
his wife Anu, daughter of the 7th respondent. According to the
petitioner, the petitioner and Anu belong to different religions.
They were in love. They decided to get married. Anu, the
alleged detenue, got converted to Hinduism and the petitioner
and the alleged detenue Anu entered legal matrimony under the
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 11
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act on 24.02.2006. According
to the petitioner, the marriage was solemnised in accordance
with the Hindu customary religious rites of the Arya Samajees at
Arya Samaj Mandir (Vedic Church), Rammohan Road, Calicut on
24.02.2006. According to the petitioner, the spouses were living
together for some period of time. Later, the 7th respondent
pretended to accept the marriage and wanted the alleged
detenue to be permitted to complete her educational course.
Accordingly the alleged detenue was permitted to go with the 7th
respondent. According to the petitioner, subsequently there
have been contacts between the petitioner and the alleged
detenue. The alleged detenue is now being illegally detained
and confined by the 7th respondent, her father at the Sultanate of
Oman. This detention/confinement is against the wishes and
desire of the alleged detenue Anu. The alleged detenue, his
wife, wants to join the petitioner. But her father, the 7th
respondent, is not permitting her to join the petitioner. It is in
this state of helplessness that the petitioner came to this Court
with this petition on 28.09.2010.
2. The matter came up for admission hearing. Initially
the Court was not inclined to admit the Writ Petition. The
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 12
petitioner was requested to explain how it can be shown prima
facie that the alleged detenue, his wife, is under illegal detention
and confinement. The matter was adjourned from time to time.
The petitioner ultimately produced Exts.P3 and P4 letters dated
30.09.2010 and 08.10.2010, which are alleged to be in the
handwriting of the alleged detenue. The petitioner has filed an
affidavit to confirm that the writing in Exts.P3 and P4 is the
handwriting of the alleged detenue.
3. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition was
ultimately admitted on 27.10.2010. Notice was ordered to all the
respondents.
4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the
police official respondents and the State of Kerala, ie.
respondents 1 to 5, submits that an enquiry by the police
confirms the truth of the assertions made by the petitioner. The
police are satisfied that the marriage between the petitioner and
the alleged detenue had taken place on 24.02.2006. They are
further satisfied that the alleged detenue was taken by the 7th
respondent from the petitioner with his consent on the statement
that she has to complete her education. She was taken abroad
by the 7th respondent on 18.04.2006, submits the learned
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 13
Government Pleader on the basis of instructions of the police.
The learned Government Pleader further submits that in the
light of the directions of this Court, the police had attempted to
contact the alleged detenue. It is confirmed that the alleged
detenue and the petitioner are in contact with each other. When
the alleged detenue was contacted by the police, she had also
informed the police that she wants to return to India and join the
petitioner and that she is now not able to come for want of co-
operation on the part of the 7th respondent, her father. She did
not, of course, make any complaints against her father, the 7th
respondent, submits the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner has filed two subsequent applications
as I.A.Nos.14540 of 2010 and 16107 of 2010 to implead two
additional respondents, ie. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
represented by its Secretary, New Delhi as additional 8th
respondent and the 1st Secretary Embassy of India, Muscat,
Sultanate of Oman as additional 9th respondent. Notice has been
given to the learned A.S.G.I. The learned A.S.G.I has entered
appearance for the 6th respondent, who has already been arrayed
as a party in this Writ petition.
6. We have heard the petitioner, the learned
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 14
Government Pleader and the A.S.G.I. We are satisfied that these
I.As can be allowed and additional respondents 8 and 9 can be
impleaded. They are impleaded as additional respondents 8 and
9.
7. The learned A.S.G.I submits that it will be
advantageous if notice were ordered to be issued to the
additional 9th respondent. For respondents 6 and 8, the learned
A.S.G.I straightaway appears. The learned A.S.G.I undertakes to
get instructions from the additional 9th respondent, but prays
that simultaneously, by way of abundant caution, notice of this
Court may be issued directly to the 9th respondent. We accept
the said request of the learned A.S.G.I.
8. The learned Government Pleader submits that he
wants time to make authentic submissions as to whether any
crime has been registered in respect of this episode/incident.
We give the learned Government Pleader time to take specific
instructions on that aspect.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has information from the alleged detenue that the
7th respondent has already been served. Note by the Registry
shows that the notice issued to the Bangalore address of the 7th
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 15
respondent has been returned. The Registry shall verify the fate
of the notice issued to the 7th respondent, that is of the one
addressed to him at Oman.
10. Call on 26.11.2010 for submissions of the learned
Government Pleader about the registration of the crime and also
for report of the Registry about service on the 7th respondent of
the notice sent in his Oman address. Further directions shall be
issued on 26.11.2010.
11. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned
Government Pleader forthwith.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 16
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
***********************
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 17
W.P(Crl) No.384 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the
documents produced and the affidavit filed by the petitioner.
This petition is, in these circumstances, admitted. Notice given
and the learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1
to 3. Issue notice to respondent No.6. Simultaneously give
notice to the learned A.S.G.I. Issue emergent notice to
respondent No.7 in both addresses shown in the petition. Issue
notice to respondents 4 and 5. The learned Government Pleader
and the learned A.S.G.I shall take instructions.
2. Verify service and call again on 15.11.2010.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P.(Crl.)No.384 of 2010 18