IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 337 of 2010(S)
1. SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. MANOJKUMAR,S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
4. PRABHAKARAN,MATTAYCKAL HOUSE,
5. SANOJ, S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI.AJITH MURALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant J.,
The petitioner has approached this Court again with this
petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the
respondents to produce his daughter – Sasikala S, aged 25 years
(date of birth 27.9.1984). The petitioner had come to this Court
earlier with an identical petition and the same was disposed of by
judgment dated 18.5.2010, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2.
That disposal was on the basis of agreement/ settlement of the
parties.
2. The present grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged
detenue, his daughter, who had returned along with him, as per
Ext.P2 judgment on 18.5.2010 and who was residing with him till
10.8.2010, is again missing from 10.8.2010. According to him, the
alleged detenue was is being detained by the third respondent.
W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S
2
3. This petition had come up for admission on 20.8.2010.
We were not persuaded to admit this writ petition. We posted this
case for hearing on admission to 30.8.2010.
4. On 30.8.2010, when the case was called, the alleged
detenue chose to enter appearance through a counsel. According to
the counsel, the alleged detenue had come to know of the pendency
of this proceedings and hence she was choosing to enter
appearance. We posted the case to this date for appearance of the
alleged detenue as offered by the learned counsel and to enable the
alleged detenue to file a detailed affidavit.
5. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present.
He is represented by his counsel. The alleged detenue has
appeared in person before this court. She is represented by a
counsel. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the alleged detenue.
6. We permitted the alleged detenue and her father to inter
act with each other during the pre – lunch session. After lunch
recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially.
Subsequently, we interacted with the petitioner. Later, we
W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S
3
interacted with both of them in the presence of the counsel for the
petitioner, counsel for the alleged detenue, counsel for the third
respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. The third
respondent is not present before this Court. The petitioner asserted
that the third respondent was present before the Court, when the
case was called in the morning. The learned counsel for the third
respondent accepted that assertion; but stated before us that the
third respondent, an advocate himself is not at present available
before the court, as he had to urgently leave in connection with
some other professional work.
7. In our interactions with the alleged detenue, the alleged
detenue stated that though she had returned along with the
petitioner on the strength of Ext.P2 judgment, she does not want to
continue residence along with her father – the petitioner. She
adamantly asserts that she does not want to return with her father.
It is her version in the affidavit that she has joined for M.B.L
course. She is residing along with a friend of hers at Bangalore.
She intends to join a hostel and she wants to continue her studies.
W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S
4
Inasmuch as she is not under any illegal detention or confinement,
she prays that this writ petition may be dismissed.
8. The petitioner and his counsel assert that the alleged
detenue is not living along with any friend. She does not really
intends to continue her education. She is living along with the third
respondent and it is the third respondent who brought her to this
Court, this morning, asserts the petitioner.
9. 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 confinement or detention. In this case, we are
conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an adult major
woman, aged 26 years. She is an advocate and she is aware of her
rights. She can be presumed to be aware of her responsibilities.
She is competent to take a decision affecting her future. The third
respondent is admittedly a married person. He has another wife. It
is submitted that he has already filed an application for divorce and
same is pending. The wife of the third respondent has not agreed
for divorce and therefore the petition pending is not one for divorce
W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S
5
by mutual consent, submits the alleged detenue.
10. We see the unfortunate plight of the petitioner. The
petitioner submits that he had done everything possible to make the
stay of the alleged detenue with him comfortable and happy. He
had also taken steps to obtain a Visa for the alleged detenue and he
had invested necessary amounts to send her to England to continue
her studies, as desired by her. She now states that she does not
want to go with the petitioner. She asserts that she has no
improper relationship with the third respondent.
11. We find reason to feel that the assertions of the petitioner
are correct. Be that as it may, we must respect the decisional
autonomy of the alleged detenue, an adult major woman aged about
25 years and an advocate by profession. We accept her assertion
that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. In this
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are not to
preside over the morality of the course chosen by the alleged
detenue. The petitioner can have the satisfaction that he had made
all possible efforts, prior to Ext.P2 and thereafter to ensure that his
W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S
6
daughter is saved from having an improper relationship with a
person already in valid matrimony. We are not persuaded to agree
that any direction need be issued in this writ petition.
12. In the result:
(a) This petition is dismissed.
(b) We accept the submission of the alleged detenue that she
may be permitted to leave this court alone on her own and
permit her to choose to follow whatever course that she wants to.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/