IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 371 of 2010(S)
1. SHAJEER KHAN,AGED 25,S/O.PEERU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. M.ABDUL RAHIM,REHNA GARDENS,
5. SOUDA BEEVI,REHNA GARDENS,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For Respondent :SRI.JOSIN PAUL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :27/10/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010 S
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of the various
earlier orders passed by us resting finally with the order dated
18/10/10.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition
for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and
produce `Surumi’ – a young woman aged about 20 years (date of
birth – 25/9/90). She is a student of the 2nd year B.Tech. Course.
She and the petitioner were in love. They had decided to get
married. Notice of intention to marry under the Special
Marriage Act was lodged on 11/8/10. According to the
petitioner, the proposed marriage did not meet with the approval
of the parents of Surumi – the alleged detenue. Respondents 4
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 2 :-
and 5 are the parents of the alleged detenue. They were
illegally detaining and confining her, it was alleged. It is, in
these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with
this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus on 20/9/10.
3. This petition was admitted on 20/9/10. Orders were
passed subsequently on 24/9/10, 5/10/10 and 18/10/10.
4. In fact, attempts were made to persuade the parties to
settle their disputes harmoniously. Various proposals were
traded; but we now find that all those attempts have been proved
to be in vain and non-productive. The petitioner and the alleged
detenue want to get married immediately. The parents of the
alleged detenue are unable to agree and accept the said proposal
of the petitioner and the alleged detenue to get married to each
other. They had wanted time and had stated that they may
ultimately agree if the alleged detenue after completing her
academic course wants to get married to the petitioner. The
petitioner and the alleged detenue are not willing to wait. The
father of the petitioner Sri. Peeru Mohammed has also come to
Court today. He submits that he is willing to accept the alleged
detenue as his daughter-in-law. The 4th respondent – the father
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 3 :-
of the alleged detenue, has not come to Court today. The 5th
respondent and a brother of the 4th respondent are present. The
petitioner is represented by his counsel. Respondents 4 and 5
are also represented by their counsel. The learned Government
Pleader is also present.
5. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that
she wants to get married to the petitioner immediately. Notice
under the Special Marriage Act has been given on 11/8/10.
They can now get married on any day before 11/11/10. Sri.
Peeru Mohammed agrees that he is willing to take the alleged
detenue along with him. The petitioner, his father Peeru
Mohammed and the alleged detenue agree and undertake that
they shall get the marriage of the petitioner and the alleged
detenue solemnized and registered under the provisions of the
Special Marriage Act within a period of three days. The father
of the petitioner, the petitioner and the alleged detenue agree
and undertake that the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall
not cohabit as husband and wife till their marriage is solemnized
and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
They further undertake that the certificate of marriage shall be
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 4 :-
produced before this Court on the next date of posting if the case
is posted to a date after 15 days.
6. Respondents 4 and 5 had always expressed a concern
that the alleged detenue must be enabled to complete her B.
Tech. Course. The petitioner has filed an affidavit undertaking
that even after the marriage the alleged detenue shall continue
her studies and under no circumstance her studies will be
discontinued until she completes her B.Tech. Degree Course.
We accept the said submission/undertaking/affidavit.
7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus we are
primarily concerned with the response of the alleged detenue.
The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not
under any illegal detention or confinement; but she does not
want to continue her residence along with respondents 4 and 5.
She wants to leave this Court along with the petitioner and get
married to him.
8. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue – an adult
major woman, is expressing herself voluntarily and not under
any pressure or influence. We respect her decisional autonomy.
As stated earlier, she has passed the age of 20 years now.
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 5 :-
Notwithstanding the unwillingness of respondents 4 and 5 she
wants to get married to the petitioner and reside with him. We
are satisfied that her decision can be accepted.
9. In the result:
(a) This writ petition is allowed.
(b) The alleged detenue Surumi is permitted to leave this
Court along with the petitioner and his father Peeru Mohammed.
(c) We accept the undertaking of the petitioner, his father
and the alleged detenue that the marriage between the
petitioner and the alleged detenue shall be solemnized and
registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act at
the earliest – at any rate, within a period of 3 days.
(d) We accept their further undertaking that till such
marriage takes place, the petitioner and the alleged detenue
shall not cohabit as husband and wife.
(e) We accept the affidavit/undertaking of the petitioner
and the alleged detenue that she shall continue her education
and complete her B. Tech. Course even after her marriage.
(f) Finally we accept the submission of the petitioner and
the alleged detenue that the certificate of marriage issued under
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 6 :-
the provisions of the Special Marriage Act shall be produced
before this Court by them on the next date of posting along with
a copy thereof for being furnished to respondents 4 and 5.
(g) The alleged detenue requests and it is accepted that all
books, certificates, college records etc., of the alleged detenue
which are available with respondents 4 and 5 shall be returned
to the alleged detenue through court on the next date of posting
i.e., 15/11/10.
10. Call on 15/11/10.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 7 :-
R. BASANT &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
————————————————-
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010 S
————————————————-
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010
ORDER
This order must be read in continuation of the earlier
orders passed by us resting with the order dt. 5.10.2010.
2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is
present. Respondents 4 and 5 are present. Learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and
learned Government pleader are also present.
3. We are unhappy to note that both sides report that
the conditions stipulated in the order dt. 5.10.2010 are not being
observed strictly. The alleged detenue states that she does not
want to continue the said arrangement. Respondents 4 and 5
raise a grievance that the alleged detenue is not observing the
conditions stipulated in the order dt. 5.10.10. The relatives of
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 8 :-
the petitioner complain that the alleged detenue, allegedly on
account of the conduct of respondents 4 and 5, had proceeded
to the house of the relatives of the petitioner and they had with
great difficulty sent back the alleged detenue to respondents 4
and 5.
4. We have had interactions with the petitioner and his
relatives, respondents 4 and 5 and their relatives as also the
alleged detenue. We are satisfied that the arrangements struck
as per the order dt. 5.10.10 is not working well whatever be the
reasons thereof.
5. We have, in these circumstances, decided to issue the
following directions.
i) The alleged detenue shall be accommodated at the
Santhinikethan hostel, Pachalam till the next date of posting.
ii) Respondents 4 and 5 shall meet the expenses for
such residence of the alleged detenue at the said hostel.
iii) The alleged detenue shall be taken to the said hostel
by women police constables not in uniform today and she shall
be brought back to this Court at 10.15 a.m. on 27.10.2010.
iv) The alleged detenue shall on that day inform us
W.P.(Cri) No. 371 of 2010
-: 9 :-
whether she is willing to continue the arrangement dt.5.10.2010.
In the alternative the alleged detenue shall inform the court on
that day whether she is willing to reside in the College hostel till
her education is complete and continue to observe the other
terms stipulated in the order dt. 5.10.10.
v) On that day, after ascertaining the response of the
alleged detenue as also the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5
appropriate further directions shall be issued.
We are informed that the marriage can
R. BASANT
(Judge)
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
(Judge)
Nan/