High Court Kerala High Court

Sreedevi Amma vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sreedevi Amma vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 282 of 2010(S)


1. SREEDEVI AMMA, W/O. LATE GANGADHARAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANAD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SANTHOSH, S/O. OMANAYAMMA, KAVARATH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

                For Respondent  :SRI.  K.SHAJ

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

 Dated :21/07/2010

 O R D E R
              R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                     * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                      W.P.(Crl) No.282 of 2010
                    ----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 21st day of July 2010


                         J U D G M E N T

Basant,J

The petitioner, a woman, has come to this Court with this

petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace

and produce her daughter Suja.S, aged 26 years (date of birth :

05/05/194). She is educated. She holds a Diploma and has been

working as a Laboratory Technician for a period of about 1=

years. She was allegedly found to be missing from 08/07/2010.

The uncle of the alleged detenue had preferred a complaint and

the police had registered a crime. As the alleged detenue was

not traced by the police, the petitioner came to this Court with

this petition on 13/7/2010. The petition was admitted on

14/7/2010. The case was posted to this date for appearance of

the parties.

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

present. She is represented by a counsel. Along with the

petitioner, her brother and son have also come to Court.

W.P.(Crl) No.282/10 : 2 :

3. The 2nd respondent is present. Along with him, the

alleged detenue Ms.Suja has also come to Court. As the alleged

detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the second

respondent, who is allegedly detaining her, we permitted the

alleged detenue to remain alone in the chamber with no

opportunity for the second respondent to influence her. We

granted permission to the petitioner, her brother and son to

interact with the alleged detenue.

4. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged

detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner,

her brother and son. Later, we interacted with the alleged

detenue in the presence of the second respondent and the

mother of the second respondent, who has come to Court along

with him. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also

present.

5. The alleged detenue states before us categorically

that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. She

was in love with the second respondent and they had decided to

get married. Their relationship was not approved by the

W.P.(Crl) No.282/10 : 3 :

relatives of the alleged detenue. Another marriage for the

alleged detenue was contemplated. It was at this stage that the

alleged detenue and the second respondent decided to get

married and went away. Their marriage, in accordance with the

Hindu Customary rights has been solemnised on 14/7/2010

between 9.30 a.m and 9.50 a.m at the Kaithakkal Kanjikkal

(Varikkolil) Devi Kshethra Seva Samithi. We are informed that

steps have been taken to get the marriage registered with the

Secretary of the Gramma Panchayath, Pallikkal. The certificate

dated 14/7/2010 addressed to the Secretary, Gramma

Panchayath by the Secretary, Kshethra Seva Samithi is

produced.

6. 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 that she is not. We are further satisfied that she is

married to the second respondent. The petitioner, her brother

and son, after interactions with the alleged detenue, now state

that they are now satisfied that she is not under any illegal

confinement or detention and that the alleged detenue can be

W.P.(Crl) No.282/10 : 4 :

permitted to go along with the second respondent. They accept

the fait accompli and do not want to resist the attempt of the

alleged detenue and the second respondent to live together as

husband and wife.

7. We are satisfied that no further directions are

necessary in this writ petition.


     8.      In the result,

     a)      This writ petition is dismissed.

     b)      The alleged detenue Ms.Suja, an adult major woman,

is permitted to leave the Court along with the second

respondent, with whom she has already got married and his

mother, as desired by the alleged detenue.




                                               (R.BASANT, JUDGE)



                                         (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr



                   // True Copy//       PA to Judge

W.P.(Crl) No.282/10    : 5 :

W.P.(Crl) No.282/10    : 6 :




                            R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.




                                             .No. of 200




                                    ORDER/JUDGMENT




                                            29/07/2009