IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 390 of 2009(S)
1. BAIJU, S/O. LATE RAJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. NATARAJAN, SAHITHA BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(Crl.) No. 390 of 2009 S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas
Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of
Sahitha, wife of the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the
petitioner has entered into marriage with Sahitha, daughter
of the 4th respondent, under the Special Marriage Act,
Sahitha, who is aged 24 years, is retained by the 4th
respondent against her will. Ext.P1 is the copy of the
Marriage Certificate. The petitioner has filed complaint
before respondents 1 to 3. But there is no action.
Therefore, he has filed this writ petition.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 390 of 2009
2
3. Today when the matter was taken up, we heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Pleader. The 4th respondent as also the alleged detenue were
present before us.
4. We questioned the alleged detenue. She would submit
that she would like to go with the petitioner. Of course, she
submits that there is no detention by the 4th respondent as such.
5. It is true that there is no detention. The marriage of the
petitioner and the alleged detenue has been registered under the
Special Marriage Act, as is evident from Ext.P1 certificate. In the
light of the fact that the alleged detenue is desirous of going along
with the petitioner, we allow the alleged detenue to go with the
petitioner.
6. The 4th respondent submits that he is desirous of his
daughter pursuing her B.Ed. course. The petitioner would submit
that he is prepared to sponsor the future educational needs of his
wife, the alleged detenue.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 390 of 2009
3
7. In the light of this discussion, the writ petition is
disposed of permitting the alleged detenue to live with the
petitioner, for which she is desirous of.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Sahitha may be allowed to take her certificates. The 4th
respondent submits that he has no objection in his daughter
coming home and taking all her certificates. We record the said
submission.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm