IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 259 of 2010(S)
1. SHAMON S., S/O.SAHJI E.G.,AGED 24,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT POLICE
3. RAJU, AGED 56, THAZHATHUPATHIL,
4. BIJU,AGED 37, PUNNAKKICHIRA,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI
For Respondent :SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :06/07/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Cri) No. 259 of 2010-S
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
This petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for
issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce
his wife `Malu Raju’, aged 20 years (date of birth – 3/1/1990).
She has completed her B.Sc. Course; but has not passed the
examination completely. She has to pass one more paper, it is
submitted. The petitioner asserted that he is in love with the
alleged detenue Malu Raju and that their marriage has been
solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act on 14/6/10. A copy of the certificate of marriage
issued under the Special Marriage Act is produced.
2. According to the petitioner, his marriage with the
alleged detenue is not appreciated and approved by the parents
W.P.(Cri) No. 259 of 2010 -: 2 :-
and relatives of the alleged detenue. The 3rd respondent is the
father of the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent is her
brother-in-law. According to the petitioner, on coming to know
of the marriage between him and the alleged detenue, the
alleged detenue was being illegally confined and detained by
respondents 3 and 4. It is, in these circumstances, that he came
to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas
corpus.
3. This petition was filed on 29/6/10. It was admitted on
30/6/10. Notice was ordered to the respondents.
4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present.
He is represented by his counsel. Respondents 3 and 4 are
present. They are represented by a counsel. Along with the 3rd
respondent his wife Omana – the mother of the alleged detenue,
has also come to Court. The alleged detenue Malu Raju has
come to Court along with respondents 3 and 4.
5. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with
respondents 3 and 4, who are allegedly detaining and confining
her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the
Chamber without opportunity for any one to interact with her.
The alleged detenue and the petitioner wanted and we permitted
them to interact with each other as it is seen that they are a
W.P.(Cri) No. 259 of 2010 -: 3 :-
legally wedded couple and they so desire.
6. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged
detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner.
We interacted with both of them in the presence of respondents
3 and 4 also. The learned counsel for the petitioner , the
learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned
Government Pleader were also present.
7. The alleged detenue informs us that she is married to
the petitioner and is his legally wedded wife. But she asserts
that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. She
expresses her desire unambiguously that she wants to be with
her husband – the petitioner herein. But she submits that she
accepts the desire of her parents and is willing to continue
residence with her parents until she completes the B.Sc. Course.
She submits that she shall return to the petitioner within a
period of six months from this date. The petitioner also accepts
the arrangement.
8. In a petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus, we are
primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged
detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. In the
instant case, she asserts that she is the legally wedded wife of
the petitioner and that she now resides with her parents. But
W.P.(Cri) No. 259 of 2010 -: 4 :-
she further states that she wants to complete her education and
she thereafter wants to return to the petitioner – within a period
of six months, according to her.
9. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under
any illegal confinement or detention. We are, in these
circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary
in the matter. We record the submissions of the alleged detenue
and the acceptance of the petitioner of her submissions. We are
satisfied that this writ petition can now be dismissed after
recording the above submissions.
10. In the result:
(a) This writ petition is dismissed.
(b) The alleged detenue Malu Raju is permitted to leave
this Court along with her parents as desired by her.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. to Judge
W.P.(Cri) No. 259 of 2010 -: 5 :-