High Court Kerala High Court

Jithesh vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 12 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jithesh vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 12 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 400 of 2009(S)


1. JITHESH, AGED 23, S/O. RAGHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ABDURAHMAN HAJI, KUNDUNGARA HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :12/10/2009

 O R D E R
                 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                      ------------------------------------
                     W.P(Crl.) No.400 of 2009
                     -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

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

Ms.Sumayya, daughter of the 2nd respondent, who, the petitioner

claims, is his wife.

2. This petition was filed on 01.10.09. The same was

admitted on 05.10.09 and the case was posted to this date.

3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is

present along with his counsel. The 2nd respondent, his wife-

Suhara Beevi and his brother Shamsudhin are present. They are

represented by a counsel. The 2nd respondent has brought the

alleged detenue Ms.Sumayya along with him.

4. We interacted with Ms.Sumayya in open court. She

stated that she is aged above 22 years, she having been born on

16.04.1987. She has passed her T.T.C examination and has been

working as a teacher in Ishad Public School for some time. As

W.P(Crl.) No.400 of 2009 2

she comes from the custody of the 2nd respondent, we permitted

the alleged detenue to remain in the Chamber without being

influenced by anyone. We told her that she should think over

and contemplate and give us her response to our questions when

we meet her after lunch recess.

5. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged

detenue, the petitioner and his uncle-Mohandas as also the 2nd

respondent, his wife and his brother. We interacted with them

separately initially and thereafter jointly. Their counsel as also

the learned Government Pleader were also present. The 2nd

respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining his stand.

6. The alleged detenue Ms.Sumayya states before us that

she wants now to go with the petitioner herein. She states that

they are in love. They had decided to get married. They were

residing together from 07.06.09 to 26.06.09. On 26.06.09, they

appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First

Class, Thamarassery in pursuance of the directions of this Court

in Ext.P2. There, since the 2nd respondent raised an allegation

that the alleged detenue has some mental abnormality, she was

sent to the medical expert. She was housed temporarily in a

rescue home. The learned Magistrate thereafter passed Ext.P4

W.P(Crl.) No.400 of 2009 3

order after recording Ext.P3 statement. As per Ext.P4 order

dated 06.07.09 she was permitted to go along with her parents.

Accordingly she was residing there along with her parents from

06.07.09. The petitioner asserted and the alleged detenue

admitted that she had sent Ext.P5 letter to the petitioner while

she was residing with her parents. Even though the alleged

detenue did not want any action to be taken against her parents,

she stated that she wants to go with the petitioner. She was kept

in the house of her parents.

7. The petitioner and his uncle agree and accept that the

petitioner has married the alleged detenue. They are willing to

take her along with them. They relied on Ext.P1 marriage

certificate issued by the Marriage Officer of the Trichur

Corporation. In response to a specific query by this Court the

petitioner and the alleged detenue as also the uncle of the

petitioner assert and accept that they shall get the marriage

between the petitioner and the alleged detenue solemnised and

registered again under the Special Marriage Act should there be

any defect or inadequacy in Ext.P1. In these circumstances, the

alleged detenue prays that she may be permitted to go along

with the petitioner herein.

W.P(Crl.) No.400 of 2009 4

8. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, this

Court is primarily concerned with the question whether the

alleged detenue has been detained and confined against her

wishes/desire. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances

of the case, that the alleged detenue is now in the custody of the

2nd respondent and his wife against her wishes and desire. She

is a woman, who has attained majority. She is above the age of

22 years. She has T.T.C qualification and has been working as a

teacher. We respect her wishes and desire. We respect her

decisional autonomy.

9. The 2nd respondent and his wife are unable to accept

the decision of their daughter. They submit that the alleged

detenue is mentally not alright. This question was considered by

the learned Magistrate in Ext.P4 and it has been recorded that

the medical certificate obtained shows that she is normal and

capable of taking her own decision. Even admittedly they are

planning to give her away in marriage to some others. We are

satisfied in the course of our interaction with Ms.Sumayya that

she does not suffer from any mental ailment or aberration that

must or can induce in us any dissatisfaction against the response

made by her and the decision taken by her.

W.P(Crl.) No.400 of 2009 5

10. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that

this Writ Petition can be allowed and the alleged detenue can be

permitted to leave the Court in accordance with her choice. As

stated earlier, she wants to go along with the petitioner herein.

We note the submission of the petitioner and the alleged detenue

that they shall get their marriage registered under the Special

Marriage Act and produce before us certificate to confirm such

marriage if time is given.

11. There is also one surviving irrelevant dispute. The 2nd

respondent and his wife submit that some ornaments were taken

away by the alleged detenue when she left their house. The

alleged detenue and the petitioner agree and accept that on the

next date of posting whatever ornaments of the alleged detenue

are available with them shall be returned by them to the 2nd

respondent. We make record of that submission.

12. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. We permit

the alleged detenue to leave the Court in accordance with her

own wishes and desire. In tune with her decision, we permit her

to accompany the petitioner from this Court. We accept the

submission of the petitioner and the alleged detenue that they

shall get their marriage registered under the provisions of the

W.P(Crl.) No.400 of 2009 6

Special Marriage Act and produce before this Court certificate to

prove such marriage on 23.11.2009. We further accept their

submission that on 23.11.09, they shall return to the 2nd

respondent whatever ornaments of the alleged detenue that are

available with them.

13. Call on 23.11.09.

14. The petitioner and the alleged detenue express an

apprehension of physical harm, but the learned Government

Pleader accepts that necessary action shall be taken by the

police if there be any complaints or grievance by either side.

The learned Government Pleader agrees that the police shall

escort the petitioner and the alleged detenue to the house of the

petitioner at Edappal.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

rtr/-