IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 413 of 2009(S)
1. SAJI.T.R. AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. T.G. RAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDE OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SOMAN, THYKOOTATHIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
For Respondent :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 413 OF 2009
============================
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of a wit of
habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce an adult major
woman by name Anumol, aged about 23 years, daughter of the
4th respondent. According to the petitioner, he and the said
Anumol are in love. According to him, there is no legal
impediment to get married. The petitioner and the said Anumol
want to enter matrimony. He accepts that he is aged about 38
years (he having been born in 1971, according to him.) Anumol
is aged about 22 years – she having been born in 1987. The
petitioner admits that he had earlier contracted a matrimony.
But the said marriage, according to him,has now been dissolved
WPCrl.413/2009 -2-
by mutual consent through court. There is a child born in the
said marriage aged about six years, he further submits. But
according to the petitioner, he and the said Anumol are so
attached to each other and are in love and they want to get their
marriage solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage
Act. According to him, his house and the house of the said
Anumol are adjacent to each other. On coming to know of the
relationship between him and Anumol, she has been taken away
from the residence of the 4th respondent and she has been
detained by the 4th respondent at some unknown place. It is in
these circumstances that the petitioner had come to this Court
with this writ petition.
2. This petition was filed on 12-10-2009. It was admitted
on 14-10-2009 and the case was posted to 23-10-2009. This
judgment must be read in continuation of the order dated
23-10-2009.
3. The 4th respondent, it is submitted, is not now available
in India. He has gone abroad to his place of employment. His
WPCrl.413/2009 -3-
wife Mony @ Radhamony has filed an application to get herself
impleaded. That petition is allowed and she is impleaded as the
the additional 5th respondent . As agreed by her, the additional
5th respondent has appeared before court today with the alleged
detenue. She is represented by her counsel. Along with the
additional 5th respondent, her brothers N.G.Murali,
K.G.Sasidharan and her brother-in-law Thampi are also present.
4. The alleged detenue has come along with the additional
5th respondent. The petitioner along with his counsel is present.
5. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the
additional 5th respondent, we interacted with her in court. She
stated that she is aged about 22 years. Her date of birth being
18-6-1987. She has passed B.Sc.degree and PGDCA course. She
has now come to court along with the additional 5th respondent.
But she stated that she wants permission of the court to interact
with the petitioner herein. Accordingly, we permitted her to
interact with the petitioner herein in the Chamber.
WPCrl.413/2009 -4-
6. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged
detenue in the Chamber. She adamantly insists that she wants
to go along with the petitioner. Even our request to her to return
today along with the mother and come back to the court after
due thought and contemplation after seven days was not
accepted by her.
7. The additional 5th respondent and her brothers and
brother-in-law submit that the petitioner was a married man – he
having divorced his earlier wife. As a divorcee, he has a six year
old child. There is age difference of about 15 years between the
petitioner and the alleged detenue. Going by their age and
position/status, it is not proper for the alleged detenue and the
petitioner to get married to each other. Their further case is that
they are in prohibited degree of relationship and they cannot
hence marry.
8. We interacted with the alleged detenue and mother
separately initially but jointly thereafter. We interacted with the
petitioner and his counsel separately initially, but subsequently
WPCrl.413/2009 -5-
along with the alleged detenue and her mother. Brothers of the
additional 5th respondent and her brother-in-law were also
permitted to interact with us and with the alleged detenue.
9. At the end of the day, we note that there is no
agreement between the parties. The alleged detenue adamantly
refused to go with her mother. She refused to be
accommodated in a hostel for seven days. Even the additional 5th
respondent does not want her to be so accommodated now. It
is agreed now that the alleged detenue can be set at liberty and
permitted to pursue whatever course she thinks is best suited to
her. She asserts and adamantly insists that she will go only with
the petitioner herein. She is not amenable to reason and she
does not accept the request, demands and advice of her mother
and uncles. The petitioner herein was requested by the
additional 5th respondent to request her daughter, the alleged
detenue to return with her for a period of only seven days. The
petitioner also tried to do that but the alleged detenue adamantly
WPCrl.413/2009 -6-
refused to do the same and threatened the petitioner that she
will commit suicide if the petitioner would not take her along with
him. The petitioner, in these circumstances, agrees that he will
take the alleged detenue with him if she wants to go with him.
However, he submits that he shall accommodate the alleged
detenue at his parental house at Chengannur which house is
adjacent to the house of the additional 5th respondent.
10. We record these submissions of the parties. This writ
petition can now be allowed and the alleged detenue can be
permitted to leave the court as desired by her and she will be
absolutely at liberty and shall have the freedom to pursue
whichever course she thinks is best suited for her. She states and
the petitioner agrees that they shall go from the court to the
parental home of the petitioner adjacent to the house of the
additional 5th respondent.
11. The additional 5th respondent wants to make a specific
offer and wants the court to record that the alleged detenue can
at any time come and stay with her at her residence adjacent to
WPCrl.413/2009 -7-
the parental home of the petitioner herein. The alleged detenue
spurns the said suggestion also.
12. This writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above
extent.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE
ks.