IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl) No. 211 of 2007(S)
1. BABU, S/O. SHRI ANIKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. R. ASKAR ALI, S/O. NOT KNOWN,
3. RABIYA A., D/O. R. ASKAR ALI,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.N. SHIVA SHANKER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :18/09/2007
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(Crl)NO.211 OF 2007
--------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
In the above writ petition notice by special messenger was
ordered and a direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to be present
in Court along with the detenu, if she is in his custody. The lst
respondent Circle Inspector of police was directed to ensure
compliance of this order and accordingly, the matter was posted to
20/9/2007. However, today morning, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the State submitted that the girl has been traced out and a
permission be granted to produce the girl before the Court. After
giving notice to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the case was
called at 1.45 p.m. in chambers. Since all the parties present, we
dispose of the matter as follows:
2. This habeas corpus writ petition was filed by one Babu
alleging that his wife, the 3rd respondent herein, is under the illegal
custody of the 2nd respondent. It is averred that the petitioner is a
Hindu by religion, who married the 3rd respondent, a Muslim girl.
2
W.P(Crl).No.211/2007
They were neighbours and they fell in love with each other. After
attaining the majority of the 3rd respondent, they got married at the
Temple at Chennai on 28/6/2007. To prove the age of the alleged detenu
as well as that of the petitioner, the petitioner has produced an extract of
the admission register, Ext.P1, which shows that the petitioner’s date of
birth is 2/2/1979 and that of the 3rd respondent is 27/3/1988. Both of them
thus attained majority.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while they were at Madras, the
2nd respondent along with certain other persons came to the abode of the
petitioner and insisted him to convert into Muslim religion and forcefully
took the 3rd respondent from his custody and companionship. The
petitioner stated that he is not willing to convert into Islam. After the 3rd
respondent was thus taken away by the 2nd respondent and his men, no
contact could be established with the 3rd respondent. In the
circumstances, this writ petition is filed.
4. The 2nd respondent also appeared before us. He denied the
allegation that the 3rd respondent was forcefully taken by him and his
men. On the other hand, according to him, there was a settlement talk and
the 3rd respondent agreed to go with her father and since she did not turn
up, he took her and went to Coimbatore at the residence of his wife. He
3
W.P(Crl).No.211/2007
has no intention to illegally detain the 3rd respondent as alleged in the
writ petition.
5. We interacted with the alleged detenu (3rd respondent) and she
stated that she was taken to Coimbatore by the relatives of the 2nd
respondent and that she wanted to go with her husband, the petitioner
herein. She also stated that she is not a free person at Coimbatore. It is
not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, to record any
finding as to whether which version of the petitioner or that of the 2nd
respondent is true as regards the taking away of the 3rd respondent from
the companionship of the petitioner from Madras. However, the 3rd
respondent appeared before us and stated that she has married the
petitioner and that she is pregnant and she has expressed her desire to go
with the petitioner. In the circumstances, since the 3rd respondent is a
major, she is set free.
Writ Petition is closed.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
kcv.