IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 216 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- YOHANNAN MATHAI,AGED 46 YEARS, MUKALUTHUNDIL,EDOKKAD.P.O,PORUVAZHY,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SOORANAD. 2. KOCHURAHELAMMA,PPUTHIYAVILAYIL, T.B.JUNCTION,PAROKKOD.P.O,ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. RAKESH,PUTHIYAVILAYIL,T.B.JUNCTION, PARAKKOD.P.O,ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.216 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife and two minor children namely Ms.Sunitha Mathew, Master Abin John and Master Albin John aged 34 years, 14 years and 12 years respectively. According to the petitioner, he is legally married to Ms.Sunitha Mathew. He is employed abroad; whereas she and the children, are residing in India. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenues were missing and their whereabouts were not known. It was the apprehension of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, in collusion with his mother- in-law, the second respondent, was illegally detaining his wife and two children. 2. This petition was filed on 09/06/2010. It was admitted on 10/06/2010. We were not satisfied, prima facie, that notice deserves to be issued to the respondents. We directed the learned Government Pleader to take instructions and posted the W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 2 : case to 17/6/2010. On that day, the learned Government Pleader took time and accordingly, the case was posted to this date. 3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The alleged detenues Sunitha Mathew, Abin John and Albin John are also present. The mother of Ms.Sunitha Mathew, Smt.Amminikkutty is also present. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the intention of the petitioner was to array the said Amminikkutty, the mother of Sunitha Mathew as the second respondent. By mistake, the name of the mother of the petitioner was shown as the second respondent. This is clear from the identical address shown of the alleged detenues and the second respondent, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenues have been illegally taken away by the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenues, along with the 3rd respondent and the mother of Ms.Sunitha Mathew, were residing at the address shown in Pathanamthitta. 4. We interacted with the alleged detenue Ms.Sunitha Mathew after lunch recess. She asserts that she is not under illegal detention or confinement of anyone. According to her, W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 3 : she is residing at Thiruvananthapuram now along with her two minor children. She is working as a beautician. The petitioner is not looking after her. The petitioner is guilty of matrimonial cruelty. In these circumstances, Ms.Sunitha Mathew does not want to go with the petitioner. She knows the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, according to her, is a friend of her brother. He has been of help and assistance to the alleged detenues. She denied the allegation that she was married to the 3rd respondent. She does state before us that the petitioner had earlier contracted a legal marriage and he had married her without getting the said marriage dissolved. 5. We interacted with Ms.Sunitha Mathew alone initially. Later, we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were also present. The alleged detenues are not represented by any counsel. We have interacted with the children also. Both of them submit before us that they are students of the 9th and 7th standards at the S.M.V school, Thiruvananthapuram. They state before us that they would like to reside with their mother and attend the school at W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 4 : Thiruvananthapuram. 6. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenues are illegally confined or detained. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the alleged detenues are not under any such physical detention or confinement. They are mother and two children. The mother is residing at Thiruvananthapuram along with the two minor children. The husband is employed abroad. We are, in these circumstances, unable to accept the contention that Ms.Sunitha Mathew and her children are under any illegal confinement or detention. We are hence satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 7. Parties have several conflicting claims and assertions. We feel it is not necessary to advert to all of them considering the limited nature of the relevant controversy before us. Disputes regarding restitution of conjugal rights, custody of the children, validity of the marriage, the alleged illicit relationship between the 3rd respondent and Ms.Sunitha Mathew are all matters which will have to be raised and resolved in accordance W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 5 : with law before appropriate fora. We are not persuaded to hazard any authentic opinion on those questions in this writ petition. 8. In the result, a) This writ petition is dismissed. b) The alleged detenues Ms.Sunitha Mathew, Abin John and Albin John are permitted to leave the Court together along with Amminikkutty, the mother of Ms.Sunitha Mathew, as desired by them. c) We make it clear that we have not intended to express our opinion on any question except the question that Ms.Sunitha Mathew and her children are not under any illegal confinement or detention. Parties can solicit appropriate findings on all other questions before appropriate fora. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 6 : W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 7 : W.P.(Crl) No.216/10 : 8 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009