IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 497 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- FASILUDHEEN, S/O.SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 33 YEARS, V.V.HOUSE, MANAKKODE, PANGODE.P.O. 695 609, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, VENJARAMOODU.P.O., 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. A.ABDUL MANAF, NAVAS MANZIL, KOTTUKUNNAM, VAMANAPURAM, VENJARAMOODU.P.O., 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. A.NADEERA BEEVI, NAVAS MANZIL, KOTTUKUNNAM, VAMANAPURAM, VENJARAMOODU.P.O., 695 607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD FOR R2,3 SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER FOR R2,3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) 497 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J, Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce his wife and set her at liberty to go along with him. 2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows: Respondents 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner respectively. There is reference to the marriage between the petitioner and the detenue. Petitioner is working abroad. In short, the case of the petitioner is that his wife is in the illegal detention of respondents 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that actually there is fasq (ഫസഹ) through Juma-ath, Anchal. 4. Today, when the matter came up, we have interacted with the alleged detenue, petitioner's mother and the detenue's father. The detenue would state before us that she is not willing go with the petitioner. WP(Crl.) 497/2010. 2 We are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case that respondent 2 and 3 are illegally detaining his wife. In such circumstances, we feel that this writ petition is only to be dismissed. We dismiss this writ petition. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to approach any other appropriate forum. K.M. Joseph, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.