IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 55 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PRAJEESH K.P., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.K.P.PREMARAJAN, 'GEETHALAYAM', PARAMBIL PEEDIKA PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DEEPTHI M.P., AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.M.P.VIJAYAN, MUNDATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAKULAM PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676011. 2. VIJAYAN M.P., MUNDATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAKULAM PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676011. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676001. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-676001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R3 TO R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.KAMMAPPU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPCR NO.55 OF 2011: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR (VEDIC CHURCH) CALICUT. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.11.201O PASSED IN WPC NO.33230/2010 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY SMT.SHYNINATH.C. ADVOCATE, MALAPPURAM DATED 1.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2A.TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 6.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(CRL) No.55 of 2011-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking production of the Ist respondent. Petitioner has married the Ist respondent and it is sought to be proved by Ext.P1 certificate of marriage. Ext.P2 purports to be the judgment rendered at the instance of the petitioner and the Ist respondent. 2. Today we interacted with the petitioner and the Ist respondent. In pursuance of the order dated 7.2.2011 the mother of the petitioner is also present. We interacted with her also. 3. Even today we allowed the petitioner to interact with the Ist respondent for some time. However, the Ist respondent would say that she is not prepared to go with the petitioner and that there is no illegal detention. In such circumstances, we close the Writ Petition (Criminal). This will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS