IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 363 of 2009(S)
1. SABU.V. AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. SATHYADAS, 'DAS BHAVAN',
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :15/09/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.)No.363 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this application
for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and
produce Ms.Remya S.Das, daughter of the 4th respondent with
whom the petitioner alleges that he has entered valid matrimony
under Exhibit P1 certificate of marriage registered under the
Special Marriage Act. According to him, the marriage had taken
place on 20.6.2009. But, after the marriage, the 4th respondent,
the father of the alleged detenue Ms.Remya S.Das is illegally
detaining and confining her.
2. This petition was filed on 7.9.2009. It was admitted
on 8.9.2009 and the case was posted to this date.
3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is
present along with his counsel. Respondent No.4 is present along
with his wife Mary Stella. They are represented by a counsel
also. The alleged detenue Remya S.Das has come to Court along
with the 4th respondent.
W.P.(Crl.)No.363/09 -2-
4. As the alleged detenue has came to Court along with
her parents, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the
chamber during the entire pre-lunch session without opportunity
for anyone to interact with her and influence her. In Court, she
stated that she does not want to interact with the petitioner.
5. We interacted with the alleged detenue Ms.Remya
S.Das after the lunch recess. Initially, we have interacted with
her, separately. She states that she is aged about 20 years –
she having been born on 25.5.1989. She is a student of final
year B.Tech course. According to her, though there has been a
registration of marriage done before the Marriage Officer, there is
no valid marriage between her and the petitioner herein. She
has already initiated proceedings as O.P.No.985/09 before the
Family Court, Nedumangad for annulling the said alleged
marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act. That
proceedings is pending. She does not want to be the wife of the
petitioner. She does not want to have anything to do with him,
hereafter. She is not under illegal confinement or detention of
the 4th respondent, it is submitted.
W.P.(Crl.)No.363/09 -3-
6. We later interacted with the alleged detenue, in the
presence of the 4th respondent and his wife as also the petitioner
and all counsel concerned including the learned Government
Pleader. Ms.Remya S.Das asserted in the presence of the
petitioner also that she does not accept that there has been any
valid marriage and that she does not want to go with the
petitioner. She is not under illegal confinement or detention by
the 4th respondent, she asserted.
7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the
alleged detenue, Ms.Remya S.Das is not under the illegal
confinement or detention of anyone. It is not necessary for us to
express any opinion on the validity of the marriage under Exhibit
P1. In this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus under
Article 226, we need only consider whether the alleged detenue is
under illegal confinement or detention. Having satisfied
ourselves that she is not under illegal confinement or detention,
we need only close this proceedings by dismissing this Writ
Petition.
8. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless
W.P.(Crl.)No.363/09 -4-
to say that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way
fetter the rights of either party to seek appropriate relief from the
matrimonial court.
9. There is a grievance raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the influential 4th respondent is harassing and
threatening the petitioner. The allegation is totally denied. The
4th respondent submits that he has not indulged in any such acts.
The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the police submits
that if there is any such alleged harassment or threat, the
petitioner can complain to the police and the needful shall be
done by the police. That submission is also recorded.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn