IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl) No. 294 of 2007(S)
1. VINESHKUMAR P.V., S/O T.R.VISWANATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.A.ABBAS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. SAFIYA, W/O P.A.ABBAS,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.AVINASH
For Respondent :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :17/12/2007
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
——————————-
W.P.(Crl)NO.294 OF 2007
——————————–
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2007
JUDGMENT\
Raman, J.
Petitioner alleges that Lekha, who is the alleged detenue in this
case, is his wife and the eldest daughter of respondents 1 and 2.
According to him, he and the alleged detenue married on 14/9/2007
according to the custom of the petitioner in a Temple. He has
produced Ext.P1 certificate of marriage issued by the Temple
authorities. He has also produced Ext.P2 said to have been taken at the
marriage ceremony. Petitioner belonged to Hindu religion whereas the
alleged detenue belonged to Muslim community. Petitioner is aged 25
years and the alleged detenue is aged 24 years. The alleged detenue,
Lekha, was working in M/s. HCL Technologies at Chjennai as a
Software Engineer and she was taken by her parents against her wishes
and she is unable to meet the petitioner and to attend her employment.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued, parties appeared before us. We
interacted with the petitioner, the alleged detenue-Lekha, her parents
(respondents 1 and 2) and also the Uncle of the petitioner.
2
WP(Crl).No.294/2007
2. The alleged detenue Lekha stated before us that she is a major,
she has attained the age of 24 years and her date of birth is 12/12/1983.
She was working at Chennai from where her parents took her to the
parental home. She admits that the petitioner is her husband. Since the
alleged detenu Lekha is a major, well educated and is working as
Software Engineer, there is no reason to disbelieve her statement. She
also stated that she wants to go along with the petitioner. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, she is set free.
3. The Government Pleader will see that the petitioner and the
alleged detenue reached their destination and necessary police protection
is directed to be given to them. In view of the above circumstances, we
direct that the amount deposited before this Court towards costs is
allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner through his counsel.
Writ Petition is closed.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
kcv.
3
WP(Crl).No.294/2007