IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 552 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FASILA B, AGED 40 YEARS T.C.9/776, HOUSE NO.C-1,JAWAHAR LANE, VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010. 2. AFSAL KHAN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.HASHIM, RESIDING AT DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKARA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKARA. 4. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KACHERIPARAMBATH, MUTHUNGAL WEST, KAINATTI, BADAGRA 673101. 5. VASANTHA, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEAR RESIDING AT DO..DO.. BY G.P. SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 552 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Ms. Nidhina - an adult major woman aged 20 years, (date of birth 8/5/89 as per the Secondary School Leaving Certificate). It is the case of the petitioners that the alleged detenue Ms. Nidhina was in love with the 2nd petitioner and they had decided to get married with the blessings of the 1st petitioner i.e., the mother of the 2nd petitioner. They had given notice for solemnization of marriage under the Special Marriage Act vide Ext.P3 on 7/12/09. It is their grievance that Ms. Nidhina was subsequently kept under detention and confinement by her parents and her maternal uncle - the 4th W.P.(Cri) No. 552 of 2009 -: 2 :- respondent. 2. This petition was filed on 17/12/09. The same was admitted on 18/12/09 and notice was ordered to the respondents. 3. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioners are present along with their counsel. Respondents 4 and 5 as also Mr. Mohanan - the father of the alleged detenue, are present. Along with them, the alleged detenue Ms. Nidhina has been brought to Court. 4. Ms. Nidhina comes to Court in the custody/along with her parents and her maternal uncle. We, in these circumstances, felt that she must be allowed to remain free without the influence of her parents and maternal uncle. Accordingly, we directed Ms. Nidhina to remain in the Chamber without opportunity for any one to interact with her. After about 3 hours, after lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the Chamber. Initially, we interacted with her alone. Later, we interacted with her in the presence of her parents and maternal uncle. Thereafter, we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader were present in the course of such interactions. W.P.(Cri) No. 552 of 2009 -: 3 :- 5. Ms. Nidhina states categorically that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. She admits that the 2nd petitioner was known to her. She accepts that she had signed certain documents at the Registrar's Office. But it is her version that she did not sign them knowingly. She was allegedly misled to sign such documents at the Registrar's Office. She stated categorically that she does not want to have relationship with the petitioners. To a specific query by this Court, she stated that if she was given an option to go with the petitioners or her parents, she wants to go only with her parents. 6. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under the illegal confinement or detention of any one. She is an adult major woman. We respect her decisional autonomy. Having thus convinced ourselves that she is not under detention, we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 7. The petitioners take the sublime stand now that if the alleged detenue does not want to continue such relationship, they are also willing to forget all the relationship. They, graciously we note, have chosen to return to the alleged detenue, in our presence, a diary, a photo album and the original of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the alleged W.P.(Cri) No. 552 of 2009 -: 4 :- detenue. Those documents are returned by the petitioners at the end of the interactions to the alleged detenue. They report that some books of the 2nd petitioner are available with the alleged detenue . That is accepted. It is agreed by the alleged detenue and her parents that those books shall be sent to the 2nd petitioner at his residential address by courier. 8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The alleged detenue Ms. Nidhina is permitted to return from Court along with her parents and her maternal uncle with whom she has come to Court. We also record the submissions of the contestants that they shall not in any way vex or harass the other by initiation of proceedings. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge