IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 306 of 2009(S)
1. BINDU,D/O.KAMALASANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJILAL VASUDEVAN,S/O.VASUDEVAN,
... Respondent
2. VASUDEVAN,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,KOCHI CITY.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent :SRI.SUSHANTH.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :08/10/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.)No.306 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
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
her daughter Ms.Anjana Bharathan, a girl aged about 19 years.
The petitioner is now aged 40 years. 6th respondent was the
husband of the petitioner. He is the father of the alleged
detenue. The relationship between the petitioner and the 6th
respondent has ended in divorce, though it is submitted that they
maintain a good relationship between each other, even now.
According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue was residing with
her. Respondents 1 and 2 are their neighbours. At the time of
divorce of the petitioner, she was facing difficulties and help and
assistance was offered by respondents 1 and 2. They are son
and father. 1st respondent became friendly with the family.
According to the petitioner, there is a distant relationship
between respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner.
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 2
2. According to the petitioner, she found improper
relationship between the alleged detenue and the first respondent
and she hence took the alleged detenue to the house of the 6th
respondent at Chengannur. The alleged detenue was allegedly
taken away by the first respondent from there and she was
admitted to Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel, South Janatha Road,
Palarivattom. The petitioner permitted the alleged detenue to
continue in that hostel. According to the petitioner, the alleged
detenue is not available in the said hostel and she is allegedly
detained and confined by the first respondent. It is in these
circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this
petition on 3.8.2009.
3. The petition was admitted on 4.8.2009. The matter
has been adjourned from time to time. This judgment must be
read in continuation of the orders passed by this Court resting
finally with the order dated 1.10.2009.
4. The alleged detenue appeared before Court. The first
respondent also appeared before Court. The second respondent ,
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 3
a person aged 70 years appeared before Court through counsel.
The same counsel appears for the 1st respondent also. Later, the
5th respondent, who runs the Asha Kendra Hostel was also
arrayed as a respondent. She has appeared before Court
through counsel. She states that it is true that the alleged
detenue is residing in the hostel run by her. According to her,
the alleged detenue is not guilty of any improper behaviour. She
follows the rules of the hostel satisfactorily. It is not correct to
say that she has not been returning to the hostel on many nights.
It is the case of the 5th respondent that the alleged detenue
observes the rules of the hostel satisfactorily.
5. We have interacted with all the parties in the
Chamber. We have interacted with the petitioner, the alleged
detenue and the first respondent. The learned counsel for
respondents 5 and 6 have also participated in the interactions.
The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned
Government Pleader were also present.
6. The first respondent who was initially appearing before
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 4
Court, later sought the permission of the Court to be
represented by his counsel as he had to leave to the US, where
he has business interests. Thereafter he was represented by the
counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The alleged detenue refuses to
return with the petitioner. She advances various reasons for the
same. We are not convinced of the reasons so stated. But we do
not want to advert to them in detail. According to her, she must
be permitted to continue in the hostel run by the 5th respondent.
She submits that she has not acted improperly,immorally or
amorally. In these circumstances, there is no need whatsoever
to insist on shifting her residence from her present hostel to
anywhere else. She asserts that she wants to complete her
studies, take up employment and lead an independent life of her
own.
7. The first respondent took up the stand that he has
been helping the family of the petitioner to tide over their
difficulties. He asserts that he is willing to finance the education
and accommodation of the alleged detenue. So long as she
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 5
wants to study, he is willing to meet the expenses for the same.
This, he is willing to do, because of his prior commitments and on
account of philanthropic motives. He has no objection against
the alleged detenue shifting her residence with the petitioner or
to the ancestral house of the 6th respondent or to any other
hostel. If the alleged detenue is willing for the same, she may be
permitted to do so, submits the 1st respondent and his counsel.
8. The petitioner and the 6th respondent submitted that
continuance of the alleged detenue in the Asha Kendra Ladies
Hostel would not be conducive to the interest of the alleged
detenue, a young woman aged about 19 years. It is agreed by
all concerned that the alleged detenue was born on 9.2.1990.
Though, the 5th respondent disputes that, the petitioner as also
the counsel for the 6th respondent express the apprehension that
the alleged detenue may go astray and shall not be in a position
to lead a proper and healthy life in the Asha Kendra Hostel. They
raised a grievance that the 1st respondent has been taking her
out from the Hostel and they are seen behaving improperly. The
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 6
alleged detenue and the 1st respondent do not deny the fact that
they have been interacting with each other. The first respondent
stated before us that he does take the alleged detenue to
restaurants and to the cinema theaters. But, according to the
first respondent and the alleged detenue, there is absolutely no
impropriety or immorality in the relationship between them. To a
specific question put by the Court, they stated categorically that
at the moment they have taken no decision to enter into a long
standing marital relationship. They do not deny such possibility
in future.
9. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits
that the 6th respondent is willing to meet the educational and
residential expenses of the alleged detenue. She can join any
respectable hostel and the 6th respondent shall meet all the
expenses for the same, asserts the 6th respondent through his
counsel. The 6th respondent shall pay the amounts necessary in
advance. He shall make deposit of the amounts, if that is
necessary. He is willing to do anything to ensure that the alleged
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 7
detenue does not continue in the Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel and
shifts her residence with the petitioner, to his ancestral house or
to any other respectable hostel.
10. In our anxiety to ensure that the parties try a
harmonious settlement, we have suggested many alternatives
and have posted the case from time to time. We are now
convinced that our attempts to persuade the parties to come to a
harmonious settlement has failed. This is primarily due to the
adamant insistence of the alleged detenue that she is not willing
to shift from Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel as requested by her
father and mother. According to her, there is nothing wrong in
the Asha Kendra Hostel and she has taken an informed decision
to continue there.
11. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The
alleged detenue is an adult woman, she having crossed the aged
of 19 years now. She has her decisional autonomy. It is
impossible for the petitioner or the 6th respondent to keep the
alleged detenue with them or in any other hostel, without the
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 8
consent of the alleged detenue. She asserts that she is unwilling
to follow any other course. This Court cannot interfere with the
discretion and the decision exercised by the alleged detenue, an
adult woman about her own future. We tried to counsel her and
to persuade her to heed to the request of her mother and father.
But she refused to do the same.
12. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus,
primarily the Court is concerned with the question whether the
alleged detenue has been detained or confined against her
wishes, will and volition. We are satisfied that there is no
confinement or detention of the alleged detenue in this case. She
being an adult woman, who is unwilling to heed to the request of
her parents, we feel that the only option available to the Court is
to allow her to pursue what she thinks proper. The learned
counsel for the 5th respondent asserts that so long as the alleged
detenue resides in the Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel, it shall be
zealously ensured that she complies with all the rules of the
hostel. That undertaking is given by the 5th respondent.
W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 9
13. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this Writ
Petition can only be dismissed.
14. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The
alleged detenue Ms.Anjana Bharathan is permitted to return to
Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel as insisted by her.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn