Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala Represented on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 468 of 2010(S)


1. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.VISWANATHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT &
                   K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
             -------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010-S
             -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 20th day of December, 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 daughter `Jiji’, aged above 19 = years (date of birth –

22/5/91). She is a student of the final year General Nursing

Course at KIMS Hospital, Trivandrum. She was found missing

from 22/11/10. The petitioner’s wife i.e., the mother of the

alleged detenue had expired recently. The alleged detenue was

found missing from 22/11/10. As the efforts made by the

petitioner directly and through police to trace the alleged

detenue did not succeed, the petitioner came to this Court with

this petition on 30/11/10.

2. This petition was admitted on 1/12/10. Notice was

ordered to the respondents. The matter came up for hearing

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 2 :-

later on 10/12/10 and 15/12/10.

3. One Ameer had appeared before this Court through a

counsel on 15/12/10. He submitted that he has not been

arrayed as party with oblique motive. The alleged detenue and

the said Ameer are in love. They have decided to get married.

He undertook to produce the alleged detenue before Court on

20/12/10 and accordingly the case was posted to this date.

4. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the

petitioner is present along with the younger brother of the

alleged detenue. The petitioner is represented by his counsel.

Ameer, referred to earlier, has appeared before this Court. He

has filed I.A.No.17622/10. We have heard the counsel. That

petition is allowed and the said Ameer is arrayed as the

additional 5th respondent.

5. As the alleged detenue has come to Court along with the

said Ameer and the petitioner apprehends that his daughter is

under the illegal detention/custody, we permitted the alleged

detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with no opportunity for

the said Ameer to influence her in any manner. We, however,

permitted the petitioner and his son to interact with the alleged

detenue. During the pre-lunch session, the father/the petitioner

and the daughter/the alleged detenue were thus permitted to

have interactions in the presence of the brother of the alleged

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 3 :-

detenue.

6. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged

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

Subsequently, we interacted with them in the presence of the

said Ameer i.e., the additional 5th respondent. The learned

counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the additional

5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also

present.

7. The alleged detenue and the said Ameer submit that

they have fallen in love. They have decided to get married. As

they belong to two different religions – the alleged detenue is a

Hindu and the said Ameer is a Muslim, they could not get their

marriage solemnized and registered so far. They have given

notice under the Special Marriage Act. Such notice has been

given on 30/11/10 before the Sub Registrar, Trivandrum. The

alleged detenue and Ameer will be able to get their marriage

solemnized and registered only on or after 30/12/10. The said

Ameer and the alleged detenue assert that they have no

intention at present of any religious conversion. They want to

get married as Hindu and Muslim under the Special Marriage

Act. The alleged detenue is a student of the final year General

Nursing Course at KIMS Hospital, Trivandrum. Both the

alleged detenue and the said Ameer assert before us that the

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 4 :-

alleged detenue shall continue her education. It is further

stated before Court that till the marriage takes place, the alleged

detenue and Ameer shall not cohabit as husband and wife. The

alleged detenue is living along with a friend of the said Ameer –

by name Siraj at Manjeri. They agree that till they get married

in accordance with law, they shall not cohabit as husband and

wife. If sufficient time were given, they shall get their marriage

solemnized and registered under the Special Marriage Act, they

submit.

8. The petitioner/father, after his interactions with the

alleged detenue, states before us that he is now satisfied and

convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal

confinement or detention. He does not now want to raise any

objection against the marriage between the alleged detenue and

the said Ameer. Appropriate safeguards may be insisted. It

may be insisted that the marriage takes place in accordance with

law and only thereafter the alleged detenue and the said Ameer/

the additional 5th respondent, are permitted cohabit as husband

and wife, it is submitted.

9. We have considered all the relevant inputs. 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

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 5 :-

that the alleged detenue, an adult major woman, aged above

19 = years, is not under any illegal confinement or detention.

We respect her decisional autonomy. We are satisfied that she

can be permitted to leave with the additional 5th respondent.

10. The learned Government Pleader submits that on

1/12/10 the alleged detenue had appeared before the learned

Magistrate having jurisdiction and the learned Magistrate had

permitted the alleged detenue to leave Court along with the

additional 5th respondent, the learned Magistrate having

satisfied himself that she is not under any illegal detention or

confinement.

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

further directions are necessary in this writ petition, we having

satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under any

illegal confinement or detention.

12. In the result:

(a) This writ petition is dismissed.

(b) The alleged detenue, who has come to Court along with

the additional 5th respondent, is permitted to leave this Court

along with the additional 5th respondent as desired by her.

(c) We accept the submission of the alleged detenue and

the additional 5th respondent that their marriage in accordance

with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act shall be

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 6 :-

solemnized and registered on or after 30/12/10. We accept their

further submission that till such marriage is solemnized and

registered, they shall not cohabit as husband and wife and that

till then, the alleged detenue shall be accommodated at the

house of the friend of the additional 5th respondent – Siraj by

name, at Manjeri.

(d) We accept the submission of the alleged detenue and

the additional 5th respondent that on the next date of posting,

they shall produce before Court the marriage certificate issued

under the Special Marriage Act along with a copy thereof for

being furnished to the petitioner.

13. Call this petition again on 14/1/11 for the alleged

detenue and the additional 5th respondent to appear before us

along with the marriage certificate and a copy thereof.

Sd/-

R. BASANT
(Judge)

Sd/-

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 7 :-

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 8 :-

R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

————————————————-

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010-S

————————————————-
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010

ORDER

Basant,J.

A counsel appears for Ameer, the person with whom the

alleged detenue had appeared before the learned Magistrate.

He is filing an application to get impleaded in this writ petition,

it is submitted. The learned counsel Sri.K. Praveenkumar

submits that if the case is posted to 20/12/10, the alleged

detenue and the said Ameer shall appear in person before this

Court. We accept the submission of the learned counsel and

post the case to 20/12/10 for appearance of the alleged detenue

along with the said Ameer.

R. BASANT
(Judge)

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)

Nan/

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 9 :-

R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

————————————————-

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010-S

————————————————-
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010

ORDER

Basant,J.

The learned Government Pleader submits that subsequent

to the filing of this petition, on 1/12/10 the alleged detenue had

appeared before the learned Magistrate and the learned

Magistrate had set her at liberty. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner or the other relatives of the

alleged detenue did not have occasion to interact with the

alleged detenue. They still feel that the alleged detenue is

under illegal detention.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police

require some further time to ensure that the alleged detenue is

traced and she appears before this Court . We grant the police

time to trace the alleged detenue and ensure her appearance

before this Court.

3. Call on 15/12/10.

W.P.(Cri) No. 468 of 2010 -: 10 :-

R. BASANT
(Judge)

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)

Nan/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.131 seconds.