IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 1 of 2010(S)
1. ELIKUTTY CHACKO @ AMMINI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FAISAL, S/O.MAJEED KUTTY RAWTHER,
... Respondent
2. MAJEED KUTTY RAWTHER,
3. SHAILA.P.S.,
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. DISTRICT SUPERINTEND OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :SRI.V.S.SALIM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.1 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of earlier
orders passed by two Benches of this Court resting with the
order dated 15.01.2010.
2. The petitioner had come to this Court with this
petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace
and produce her daughter Dayanamol, aged 19 years (date of
birth – 03.01.1991). It was her apprehension that her daughter
Dayanamol, the alleged detenue, was being illegally detained by
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. This petition was filed on 04.01.2010. It was admitted
on 05.01.2010. The alleged detenue was produced before Court
on 13.01.2010. She was accommodated initially at the YWCA,
Ernakulam, and later till this day at the Working Women’s Hostel
run by the Changanassery Municipality.
4. Today when the case came up for hearing the
petitioner and her counsel are present. The alleged detenue
W.P(Crl.) No.1 of 2010 2
Dayanamol has been brought from the working women’s hostel
run by the Changanassery Municipality, where she is presently
accommodated.
5. We had interactions with the petitioner and the
alleged detenue. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were also present.
The learned counsel for the petitioner was also present. The
learned Government Pleader was also present.
6. We are happy to note that the parties have come to an
agreement and understanding and they now agree that this Writ
Petition can be disposed of as agreed with directions.
7. The alleged detenue asserts, the petitioner accepts
and respondent Nos.1 and 2 agree that marriage between the
alleged detenue and the 1st respondent can be solemnised under
the provisions of the Special Marriage Act after the 1st
respondent attains the age of 21 years.
8. All agree that the alleged detenue shall today return
from Court along with the petitioner and that she shall reside
along with the petitioner until her marriage takes place with the
1st respondent as agreed earlier in accordance with the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
W.P(Crl.) No.1 of 2010 3
9. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as agreed on
the above terms. The alleged detenue Dayanamol is permitted to
leave the Court along with her mother, the petitioner herein, as
agreed by all concerned.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/