IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(Crl.).No. 47 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.A.SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.ALIKUNJU, KURUDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL. 3. LIJO, S/O.PAILY, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, VELIYATHAMPARAMBU, NAYARAMBALAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(CRl)NO.47/2008 APPENDIX RESPONDENTS' EXT: EXT.R3(a).PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE AGREEMENT DATED 24/1/2008. P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.47 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner alleges that his second daughter, Shereena, who is aged 22 years, was found missing from 24/1/2008. The petitioner and his wife made extensive search in the nearby area; but she could not be found out anywhere. Accordingly, they reported the matter to the 2nd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police and a written complaint was given. Later it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that while the petitioner's daughter was working in the Studio, the 3rd respondent was constantly approaching her with request to marry her and subsequently the 3rd respondent has managed to kidnap the petitioner's daughter and she is in the illegal confinement of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation. It is averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's daughter and the 3rd respondent were in love for the last two years, both of them are majors and an agreement for marriage was executed between the parties as evidenced by Ext.R3(a). But their marriage could not be -2- WP(Crl).No.47/2008 performed under the Special Marriage Act for the reason that the original certificates are retained by her father. Hence they have decided to conduct the marriage according to the custom of the petitioner, which will however take sometime. Both the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent are now residing along with the parents of the 3rd respondent in their house. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued, the alleged detenue appeared before us. We have interacted with her. She stated that she is an educated girl studied upto B.Com., she is in love with the 3rd respondent and she supported the averments made in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. She also submitted that she is a major and she does not want to go along with the petitioner. Though we gave an opportunity to the parents to interact with the alleged detenue in chambers, they stated that they do not want to talk to her. In the circumstances, on the basis of what is stated above, we find that the petitioner's daughter is not under the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent as alleged. Writ Petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.