IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 436 of 2010(S)
1. C.S.SUMESH, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHRI.IBRAHIMKUTTY, PADINJAREATTAM,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.KHALID
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :15/11/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010
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
Hiba, daughter of the 1st respondent, a young woman, aged
about 24 years (date of birth – 21.05.1986). She has completed
her B.Sc. Course. She had done P.G diploma course for Dialysis
Technician. She was employed in the Lourde’s hospital. On
26.10.2010, he and the alleged detenue entered matrimony
before the S.N.D.P Branch Office, Madhuraveli. On 27.10.2010,
she returned to her place of employment. Thereafter she could
not be traced. According to the petitioner, she was under the
illegal detention and confinement of the 1st respondent, her
father. In these circumstances, the petitioner came to this Court
with this petition on 08.11.2010.
2. This petition was admitted on 09.11.2010. Notice was
ordered to the respondents. The parties were directed to appear
before Court today.
3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is
present. He is represented by his counsel also. The 1st
W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 2
respondent has come to Court. He is represented by a counsel.
Along with the 1st respondent, the alleged detenue, has also
come to Court.
4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in
the custody of the 1st respondent, her father, who is allegedly
detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to
remain in the Chamber with opportunity for no one including the
petitioner and the 1st respondent to influence her. To our query,
the alleged detenue stated in Court that she does not want to
interact with the petitioner.
5. We interacted with the alleged detenue in the
Chamber after the lunch recess, alone initially and later in the
presence of the petitioner. Later we interacted with both of
them in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned
Government Pleader was also present.
6. The alleged detenue stated before us that it is true
that she knows the petitioner for a long period of six years and
they were in love. She further stated that it is true that some
ceremony of marriage was undergone by them at the S.N.D.P
Guru Mandiram at Madhuraveli. But according to her, she does
W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 3
not want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. She
wants to return along with her father, the 1st respondent.
7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we
are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged
detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are
satisfied from the responses of the alleged detenue that she is
not under any illegal confinement or detention. We do not want
to express any opinion on the other aspects. Suffice it to say that
having satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under
any illegal confinement or detention, we are satisfied that our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot, need
not and does not deserve to be invoked.
8. In the result:
a) This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed;
b) The alleged detenue Hiba Ibrahim, a young woman,
aged above 24 years (date of birth – 21.05.1985) is permitted to
leave the Court along with her father, the 1st respondent as
desired by her.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 4