High Court Kerala High Court

Madhu.G. vs Director General Of Police (Law & … on 27 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Madhu.G. vs Director General Of Police (Law & … on 27 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 221 of 2010(S)


1. MADHU.G., S/O.GOPINATHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER)
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUPT. OF POLICE,

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. SAJAD, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 21 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR

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

 Dated :27/07/2010

 O R D E R
               R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                       **********************
                   W.P(Crl.) No.221 of 2010
                        *********************
               Dated this the 27th day of July, 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

his minor daughter Anu (date of birth – 17.05.1994). The

petitioner apprehended that she was under illegal confinement

or detention of the 4th respondent. But later the petitioner

realised that she was under the illegal confinement and

detention of the 5th respondent. The petition was subsequently

amended to delete the original 4th respondent from the array of

parties and to bring in the 5th respondent on the array of parties.

2. This petition was filed on 11.06.2010. It was admitted

on the same day. This judgment must be read in continuation of

our earlier orders passed in the matter resting with the order

dated 22.06.2010.

3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his

wife are present. The alleged detenue has come along with them

to Court. The petitioner is represented by his counsel.

Respondent No.5 has appeared before Court along with his

father. He is represented by a counsel.

W.P(Crl.) No.221 of 2010 2

4. We have interacted with the alleged detenue.

Subsequently we interacted with the petitioner and respondent

No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

counsel for respondent No.5 and the learned Government

Pleader were also present.

5. The alleged detenue and her parents now submit that

it is confirmed that she is not pregnant. The alleged detenue

offers to return along with her parents. She is aged only 16

years and we agree that the petitioner is now entitled to keep

custody of his minor daughter, the alleged detenue. It is

submitted that a joint affidavit has been filed by the petitioner

and his wife undertaking that the alleged detenue shall not be

given away in marriage before she attains the age of 18 years

and that even thereafter she shall not be compelled to marry

against her wishes. It is further submitted that certain articles

which were available with respondent No.5 have been returned

to the alleged detenue through police.

6. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no

further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. This Writ

Petition can now be allowed.

W.P(Crl.) No.221 of 2010 3

7. In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is, in theses circumstances, allowed;

b) The alleged detenue minor Anu is permitted to leave

the Court along with her parents, ie. the petitioner and his wife,

as desired by her;

c) We accept the affidavit of undertaking filed by the

petitioner and his wife referred above.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/