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/