IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 441 of 2009(S)
1. K.J.THOMAS, KANNIKULATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. MOLLY THOMAS,
Vs
1. K.R.JANISH, KAVALAMMACKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. KUNJUMON, KAVALAMMACKAL HOUSE,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL
For Respondent :SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :10/11/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.)No.441 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier
orders resting with the order dated 6th November, 2009.
2. The petitioners had come to this Court with this
petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace
and produce their daughter Binumol Thomas, aged 24 years
(date of birth 28.11.1985). The petitioners are the parents of the
said Binumol Thomas. They apprehended that the alleged
detenue was under the illegal confinement of respondents 1 and
2. Binumol Thomas is a Nurse by profession and the first
respondent was a co-worker of hers, earlier. Second respondent
is the father’s brother of the first respondent. He was arrayed
under the mistaken impression that he is the father of the first
respondent.
3. Parties had appeared before this Court on 6.11.2009.
After discussions with the parties, the alleged detenue had
agreed to go with the petitioners to give them the assurance and
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -2-
satisfaction that she is not acting at the behest of any other
person and that she has taken the decision to go with the first
respondent on her own. Accordingly, from 6.11.2009 to this day,
the allege detenue has been residing along with the petitioners.
4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioners and
their counsel are present. The petitioners have come along with
the alleged detenue. We interacted with the alleged detenue
and the alleged detenue reiterated that she is in love with the
first respondent, that she wants to marry the first respondent
and that she has taken that decision voluntarily and genuinely on
her own and not because she is under the influence, threat or
intimidation of anyone.
5. We are satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenue
has taken the decision to go with the first respondent voluntarily
and not under the improper influence of anyone. Even the
petitioners now appear to be convinced that their daughter is not
under any illegal confinement or detention of the first
respondent.
6. The first respondent along with his parents is also
present before Court. They are willing to take the alleged
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -3-
detenue with them. Notice to perform/solemnise the marriage
between the first respondent and the alleged detenue under the
Special Marriage Act has already been given on 2.11.2009. The
first respondent, his parents and the alleged detenue assure us
that they shall get the marriage performed/solemnised under the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act and shall report that fact to
this Court, if the case is posted to a date after 2.12.2009. The
alleged detenue, the first respondent and the parents of the first
respondent agree and accept that until the marriage is
performed, the alleged detenue and the first respondent shall not
cohabit and that they shall cohabit as husband and wife only after
their marriage is solemnised under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act on or after 2.12.2009.
7. Though, we attempted to work out a settlement
between the parties, we note that the petitioners are unwilling to
accept the marriage between their daughter and the first
respondent. The parents of the first respondent are willing to
co-operate and promise that they shall look after the alleged
detenue as their own daughter and there shall be no difficulty for
her at their residence.
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -4-
8. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this Writ
Petition is only to be dismissed. We are convinced that there was
no illegal confinement or detention of the alleged detenue
Binumol Thomas, who is now aged 24 years and a Nurse by
profession. We accept the submission of the alleged detenue, the
first respondent and the parents of the first respondent that the
marriage shall be performed and that the alleged detenue and
the first respondent shall cohabit as husband and wife only after
solemnisatin of their marriage. We accept their request to post
the case to a date after 2.12.2009, so that they can produce the
certificate of marriage by that date.
9. Call this petition again on 7.12.2009. The alleged
detenue and the first respondent shall appear before this Court
on that date along with the certificate of marriage issued under
the Special Marriage Act.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -5-
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————————–
W.P.(Crl.)No.441 OF 2009
—————————————————–
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
O R D E R
Basant, J.
The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for
issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce
their daughter Binumol Thomas, aged 24 years (date of birth
28.11.1985). The petitioners, the parents of the alleged detenue
apprehended that their daughter is under the illegal detention
and confinement of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners were
under the impression that the 2nd respondent is the father of the
first respondent. He is not the father of the first respondent, but
only his father’s brother, it is now agreed by all concerned.
2. This petition was filed on 29.10.2009. It was admitted
on 30.10.2009. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the
case was posted to this day.
3. Today when the case is called, the petitioners are
present. They are represented by their counsel also. The first
respondent has come to Court along with his parents –
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -6-
Mr.Rajappan and Mrs.Omana. They are also represented by their
counsel. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with
the first respondent and his parents.
4. We ascertained the vital details from the alleged
detenue in Court. We felt that before we ascertain further details
and her crucial responses from her, as she comes from the
custody of the first respondent and his parents, she must be
permitted to leave alone and think and contemplate for herself
the response that she should give to this Court. The petitioners –
the parents of the alleged detenue wanted opportunity to interact
with the alleged detenue. The same was also granted. The
petitioners were permitted to interact with their daughter, the
alleged detenue for about three hours.
5. We met the alleged detenue after lunch recess, in the
Chamber. In our interactions with her, she asserted that she is
not under illegal detention or confinement of anyone. According
to her, the first respondent and she were colleagues in a hospital
earlier. Both of them are Nurses. They are in love. They want
to get married to each other. She was not kidnapped or
abducted by the first respondent, but she had willingly joined the
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -7-
first respondent with the intention of getting married. They have
already registered a marriage agreement dated 25.9.2009. They
have already given notice to get their marriage
solemnised/registered under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act. That notice was given on 2.11.2009. Receipt to
confirm the said fact is also placed before us for our perusal.
6. After interacting with the alleged detenue separately,
we interacted with the petitioners and the alleged detenue
together. Later, we interacted with the first respondent and his
parents. Subsequently, we interacted with all of them together.
The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first
respondent were present. The learned Government Pleader was
also present.
7. We are happy to note that at the end of the
interactions, the parties appear to be coming closer to a
harmonious settlement. To allay the apprehensions of the
petitioners that the alleged detenue is being influenced and her
will dominated by the first respondent, it was agreed that the
alleged detenue shall go with the petitioners and live with them
till 10.11.2009. During such period, the alleged detenue will be
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -8-
permitted to reside at Kannikulathil House, Kaliyar P.O., Idukki
and shall not be taken to any other place. In the house, no one
other than the petitioners will be present. Of course, the
maternal grandmother and the paternal grandmother of the
alleged detenue can also be permitted to visit the alleged
detenue in the house and stay there, if necessary. Till
10.11.2009, the alleged detenue and the first respondent shall be
permitted to interact over the telephone between 8 a.m. and
9.a.m in the morning and 8 p.m. and 9 p.m in the evening. Till
10.11.2009, no other person shall be permitted to meet the
alleged detenue. She shall not be permitted to be counselled by
any other person, nor shall any medicines be administered to her.
She shall be produced before this Court again on 10.11.2009 at
1.45 p.m. Appropriate further orders shall be passed on that
date. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that the local
Sub Inspector shall be given instructions to ensure that these
conditions are complied with. Either party may move this Court
earlier, if any emergent orders are necessary.
8. Call this petition again at 1.45 pm on 10.11.2009 in
the Chamber.
W.P.(Crl.)No.441/09 -9-
9. Hand over copy of this order to both counsel and to
the learned Government pleader.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn