IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 300 of 2009(S)
1. GEETHA M., D/O.KUNHUKUTTAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :01/10/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(CRL)NO. 300 OF 2009
============================
DATED THIS THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner, a friend of the alleged detenue has come to
this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to cause the
production of the alleged detenue and to set her at liberty. This
order must be read in continuation of the orders passed by this
Court from 29-7-2009 and resting with the last order dated
30-9-2009.
2. The crux of the averments in the petition is that the
alleged detenue, Deepthi, a girl aged 22 years – she having been
born on 27-12-1987, is being illegally detained and confined at
the Mahila Mandiram, Manjeri. Such detention is against her will
and desire. As per the averments in the petition, the alleged
detenue had some grievances that she was being molested by
her brother-in-law; that her parents were not heeding to her
WPCrl.300/2009 -2-
complaints; she was assaulted by her father, she complained to
the Protection Officer seeking action against them. She was
admitted to the hostel and later given protective accommodation
at the Mahila Mandiram; that she was forced to withdraw her
complaint against her brother-in-law and father and that her
detention in the Mahila Mandiram amounted to illegal
confinement. Since the alleged detenue had no one to protect
her interest, the petitioner who claimed to be a friend of the
alleged detenue had taken up her cause. The petitioner moved
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri complaining about
the illegal detention of the alleged detenue at the Mahila
Mandiram and sought orders. The learned C.J.M. by Ext.P2
order dismissed the said application. It is thereafter that the
petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ
of habeas corpus.
3. When this petition was filed on 28-7-2009, only
respondents 1 to 3 were arrayed as parties. Later, the
Protection Officer, Manjeri, who had allegedly facilitated the
admission of the alleged detenue at Mahila Manidram was
arrayed as the 4th respondent. Subsequently the parents of the
WPCrl.300/2009 -3-
alleged detenue got themselves impleaded as additional
respondents 5 and 6.
4. We interacted with the alleged detenue. The alleged
detenue stated before us categorically that she is being detained
at the Mahila Mandiram against her will and desire. She was
produced before this Court on 4-8-2009. We interacted with the
parties and made efforts to induce the parties to come to a
harmonious settlement. According to the alleged detenue, her
life with the parents was a source of agony and misery for her.
Her brother-in-law had misbehaved to her. She had complained
about this to her father. Instead of protecting her, her father
allegedly assaulted her and she suffered in juries. She did not
want to return along with her parents. She is aged 22 years.
She is a B.Sc.Microbiology graduate. She has already worked
and earned some amounts by tuition given to students. She did
not want return with the parents. She wanted the court to
permit her to reside in some hostel, secure some employment
and permit her to stand on her own legs and to lead a
respectable life.
5. Respondents 5 and 6 had a totally different story to
WPCrl.300/2009 -4-
advance. According to them, their daughter, though aged about
21 years was not in a position to take decisions which are best
suited for her. They raised a grievance that their daughter was
not heeding to their requests to return along with them as she
was having an affair with one Shaji Kumar, a married person with
a child. According to respondents 5 and 6, the petitioner herein
was only a name lender for the said Shaji Kumar and was
attempting to influence and persuade the alleged detenue to
continue the improper affair with the said Shaji Kumar and to
go and reside with him.
6. Our efforts on 4-8-2009 led the parties to come to
some sort of understanding. The alleged detenue agreed to go
along with respondents 5 and 6. We wanted the parties to
further settle their disputes. The case was then posted to
17-8-2009.
7. Experience was disappointing on 17.8.2009 as the
parents and the daughter were not able to come to any
agreement. When the case came up for hearing on 17-8-2009,
the alleged detenue refused to return with her parents and the
parents also felt that there will be no point in compelling the
WPCrl.300/2009 -5-
alleged detenue to go with them again. Again after discussions it
was agreed that the alleged detenue can be accommodated at
the Santhinikethan hostel, Ernakulam with opportunity for the
parents to interact with her and to attempt in the meantime to
arrive at a harmonious settlement. The case was thereafter
posted on many dates. We also attempted to persuade the
parents and the alleged detenue to come to some agreement and
understanding. But all those efforts failed miserably. Her
residence at the Santhinikethan continued from 17-8-2009 to this
date.
8. The alleged detenue submits that though she has
accepted the request of her parents and the suggestion of the
court to reside in Santhinikethan hostel and continue her
interactions with their parents, her parents do not understand
her. She repeated her request that she may be permitted to
take up residence in some respectable and reputed institutions
and attempt to secure employment. She is confident that she
will be able to secure some employment considering her
educational qualifications.
9. The parents of the girl apprehend that if the court were
WPCrl.300/2009 -6-
to allow her to leave Santhinikethan hostel, she would virtually
be a pawn in the hands of the petitioner and Shaji Kumar, a
married man with whom that the alleged detenue has some
improper relationships. The parents submitted before court that
their primary anxiety was that the life and future of the alleged
detenue will be spoiled, if she were so permitted to take up
residence to some hostel. In the meantime, I.A.No.11332/2009
was filed by the wife of the said Shaji Kumar. She also
expressed the apprehension that the alleged detenue may
continue her relationship with Shaji Kumar, if she were set free
by the court. She prayed that she may be impleaded. Her
application for impleadment , I.A.No.11332/2009 was dismissed
with the observation that formal impleadment was not necessary
and she and her counsel would be heard, if they want to make
any submissions before court. But thereafter she or her counsel
has not appeared before court.
10. The alleged detenue stated before court that she would
like to take up residence at Sithara Ladies Hostel, Manjeri Road,
Malapuram or Sree Suma Ladies Hostel, Court Road, Manjeri.
She asserts that they are respectable institutions without any
WPCrl.300/2009 -7-
adverse reputation. She prayed that she may be permitted to
take up residence there.
11. Appreciating the anxiety of the parents, this Court
directed the learned learned Government Pleader to make
enquiries through police and report to the court whether it is safe
to permit the alleged detenue to take up residence in those
hostels. The learned Government Pleader after making necessary
enquiries reported that both those are respectable institutions
without any adverse reputation. The alleged detenue stated
before us that she has a relationship with the said Shaji Kumar
and she would like to marry him if there be no legal
impediments. She however asserted before us that she does not
intend to have any improper relationship with him and she would
not go astray. She would lead a righteous life only and there is
no reason for the court to suspect her bonafides. In these
circumstances she may be allowed to go out of the
Santhinikethan hostel and take up residence at one of the two
hostels referred above. She asserts that she has amounts with
her earned by her from giving tuition to the students and she will
soon be able to find out a respectable employment for herself.
WPCrl.300/2009 -8-
12. The court is left in a dilemma. The anxiety of the
parents deserves consideration. The freedom and liberty of the
alleged detenue has to be respected. Her decisional autonomy
must also be respected. In proceedings under the Habeas Corpus
Act, it may be impossible for the court to ensure the proprietous,
moral and correct behaviour on the part of persons. In any
view of the matter, we have ultimately persuaded ourselves to
agree that the alleged detenue, an adult woman – educated and
qualified, must be permitted to be free and to lead a life of her
choice. It will be impossible for this Court to continue with the
efforts of settlement between the parents and their daughter
when they are not willing to come to any harmonious settlement.
In our anxiety to ensure that the parties do come to a
settlement, we had wanted the learned Government Pleader to
ensure that counselling and psychological support was given to
the parents and daughter. In fact, they had attended two
sessions of counselling also. But those attempts also did not
bear fruit. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this writ
petition need not be continued any longer. This writ petition can
be allowed. The alleged detenue can be permitted to proceed to
WPCrl.300/2009 -9-
Sree Suma Ladies Hostel, Court road, Manjeri where she wants to
take up accommodation. The learned Government Pleader
agrees that women police constables from the Manjeri Police
station shall escort the alleged detenue (not in uniform) to the
said hostel.
13. This writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. The
alleged detenue is informed that she is at liberty to proceed
wherever she wants. True to her desire she shall be left at the
Sree Suma Ladies Hostel, Court Road, Manjeri by women police
constable not in uniform immediately.
14. Handover copy of this judgment to all counsel.
Sd/-
R. BASANT, JUDGE
Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE
ks. TRUE COPY
WPCrl.300/2009 -10-