High Court Kerala High Court

Vinod vs The Deputy Superintendant Of … on 28 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vinod vs The Deputy Superintendant Of … on 28 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 374 of 2010(S)


1. VINOD,S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. VINOJ K, S/O.KITTU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.ELIAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :28/09/2010

 O R D E R
           R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                     ***********************
                   W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010
                  *****************************
           Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

The petitioner, a young man, aged about 29 years, has

come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas

corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Jemi by name,

aged 22 years (date of birth 02.10.1987). The marriage between

the petitioner and Jemi (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged

detenue’) had taken place on 27.08.2006. A girl child by name

Devananda was born on 11.03.2007. The alleged detenue was

missing from 31.08.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his

wife is under the illegal detention/confinement of the 4th

respondent. A complaint was filed before the police. But the

police had not succeeded in tracing the alleged detenue and it is,

in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court

with this petition on 17.09.2010. The petition was admitted on

22.09.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case

was posted to 01.10.2010.

2. Today on the representation of the learned

Government Pleader, this case was advanced for hearing. When

W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 2

the case is called, the petitioner along with his counsel is

present. The 4th respondent, Vinoj, who according to the

petitioner was allegedly detaining his wife, the alleged detenue,

is present. Along with him, the alleged detenue has also come to

Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that the

alleged detenue was traced by the police and she was produced

before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned

Magistrate on being satisfied that the alleged detenue is not

under any illegal confinement or detention, had set her at liberty

permitting her to pursue whatever course she chose to follow. It

is, in these circumstances, as directed by the police that the

alleged detenue along with the 4th respondent has appeared

before Court today.

3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in

the custody of the 4th respondent, who allegedly is detaining and

confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone

in the Chamber with opportunity to the petitioner to interact

with her. The petitioner wanted and the alleged detenue agreed

for such interaction. During the pre lunch session, the spouses

were given opportunity to interact with each other.

W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 3

4. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged

detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with the alleged

detenue in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we

interacted with both of them in the presence of the 4th

respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader were also present. The alleged

detenue and the 4th respondent are not represented by any

counsel.

5. The alleged detenue submits that she is not under any

illegal detention or confinement. She is now living with the 4th

respondent. She is doing so, on her own free will. She does not

want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. She wants

a divorce. She has no objection in the petitioner keeping custody

of her child. She has brought to Court today one gold bangle

and two gold rings which she wants to give to her child. The

child is not produced in Court today.

6. The petitioner after his interactions with the alleged

detenue states before us that he is now convinced that the

alleged detenue is not under illegal detention or confinement of

anyone. He accepts the desire of the alleged detenue that she

wants to put an end to the marital tie. He is willing to keep the

W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 4

child in his custody and lookafter the child. He is agreeable for a

divorce by mutual consent, subject to appropriate conditions.

7. The 4th respondent submits before us that he is aged

22 years. The alleged detenue is also aged 22 years. The 4th

respondent submits that the alleged detenue has been residing

with him and he is now willing to marry her in accordance with

law after she secures divorce from the petitioner.

8. Thus at the end of the day, after interaction between

the parties, the parties are in agreement that the marriage

between the alleged detenue and the petitioner can be dissolved

by filing a joint application for divorce by mutual consent. They

also agree that the child can continue in the custody of the

petitioner. The 4th respondent agrees that after the alleged

detenue secures divorce from the petitioner, he will marry the

alleged detenue in accordance with law. The request of the

alleged detenue that the gold bangle and the ornaments may be

received by the petitioner on behalf of her child is accepted by

the petitioner and one gold bangle and two gold rings are

handed over by the alleged detenue to the petitioner. We record

that fact as agreed by both sides.

W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 5

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 illegal confinement or detention. In this case,

we are convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any such

illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that this Writ

petition can now be dismissed and no further directions are

necessary. We have recorded the above facts only in our attempt

to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement of all

their disputes.

10. In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is dismissed;

b) The alleged detenue is informed that she is at liberty

to choose to pursue whatever course she thinks is best for her.

She states that she wants to go with the 4th respondent and leave

the Court in the company of the 4th respondent.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)

rtr/