IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 294 of 2010(S)
1. P.P.VIJAYAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. P.AMBIKA KUMARI, AGED 58 YEARS,
Vs
1. SHYJU PHILIP, PULIMOOTTIL,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :02/09/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier
orders resting with the order dated 30.08.2010. Today when the
case is called, the petitioners are present along with the alleged
detenue. They are represented by a counsel. Respondent No.1 is
present. He is represented by his counsel.
2. We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially
and later in the presence of the 1st respondent. Subsequently the
petitioners were also involved in the interactions. The alleged
detenue asserts that she wants to go with her mother and does
not want to continue relationship with the 1st respondent. Notice
for the marriage has been given, but she does not want to
complete the procedure and does not want to marry the 1st
respondent now. She states that she has now taken the firm
decision not to continue the relationship with the 1st respondent.
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 2
3. It is true that as per the order dated 22.07.2010, the
parties had agreed for a harmonious settlement of the disputes.
But after the alleged detenue was sent with the petitioners and
after she and the 1st respondent gave notice for solemnisation of
marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the alleged detenue
has gone back on her word and does not want the marriage to
take place now. We felt that the alleged detenue is under great
mental strain. We had hence sent her back along with the
petitioners on 30.08.2010 to take a firm and informed decision.
Today also we offered her, if she wants further time to take a
decision, to send her to a hostel, so that, she can take a decision
uninfluenced by anyone. She states that she does not want to be
sent to the hostel and would like the matter to be closed now.
We note that the alleged detenue is an adult major woman, aged
22 years (date of birth – 11.04.1988). She is an educated woman,
she having passed her B.Tech. Computer course. We are
informed that she has been working as a school teacher for six
months prior to this petition. We respect her decisional
autonomy.
4. In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is allowed;
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 3
b) The alleged detenue Neeraja is permitted to leave the
Court along with the petitioners;
c) We record the submission of both sides that there
shall be no vexatious or retaliatory action against the other from
either;
d) The learned Government Pleader submits that if any
of the parties have any grievance, they can lodge complaint
before respondent Nos.2 to 4 or any other appropriate police
official and the needful shall be done by them in the event of any
such genuine complaints.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 4
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 5
Petitioners are present. The alleged detenue has come to
Court along with the petitioners. The petitioners are
represented by their counsel.
2. The 1st respondent is present. He is represented by a
counsel. We are informed that though notice under the Special
Marriage Act has been given and the marriage can be
solemnised and registered at any moment now, the marriage has
not been solemnised and registered so far. We had interactions
with all concerned in the presence of their counsel. The learned
Government Pleader was also present. We do not want to record
the details of what transpired. But we are of the opinion that the
alleged detenue deserves to be granted some further time to
take a decision and to convey her decision to us. We are
informed that the 1st petitioner is to retire from service on
31.08.2010. We do, in these circumstances, permit the alleged
detenue to return from Court along with the 1st petitioner today
on the same terms and conditions which were stipulated as per
order dated 22.07.2010. Appropriate further directions shall be
issued on 02.09.2010 after we interact with the alleged detenue.
3. Call this petition again on 02.09.2010 at 1.45 p.m in
the Chamber.
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 6
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
rtr/
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 7
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
**********************
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
Both counsel are present. The petitioners are present.
Along with them, the alleged detenue has also come to Court.
The learned Government Pleader is also present.
2. We are informed that the arrangements struck as per
our earlier order dated 22.07.2010 are working satisfactorily and
harmoniously. Notice for solemnisation of marriage under the
Special Marriage Act has already been given on 23.07.2010. The
1st respondent is not present. But his counsel has produced copy
W.P(Crl.) No.294 of 2010 8
of the receipt evidencing payment of the requisite fee for notice
of marriage. The alleged detenue has no complaints.
3. We do, in these circumstances, post the case to
30.08.2010 to enable the parties to produce the marriage
certificate.
4. Call on 30.08.2010 on the Bench .
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/