IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 368 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SURESHKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KOMPANISSERIL HOUSE, ERUVA WEST, ERUVA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM 690502. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KEERIKKAD P.O. 4. THANKACHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, SAJI NIVAS, PULLIKKENAKKU P.O., KAYAMKULAM (TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT NO.67, BHARATHIPURAM, PONDICHERI 11. 5. SAVITHRI, SAJI NIVAS, PULLIKKANAKKU P.O. KAYAMKULAM (TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT NO.67, BHARATHIPURAM, PONDICHERI 11. R1 TO 3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH FOR R4 SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) No. 368 of 2010 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by us resting with the order dt. 1.10.2010. 2. Petitioner's case is that his wife Sajitha, aged 29 years and his two minor children, aged 2 years and 5 years, are being illegally detained by respondents 4 and 5, his father-in-law and mother-in-law. This petition was filed on 16.9.2010 We were not satisfied that the matter merits admission. But when the case was posted on 1.10.2010, the alleged detenue and the children appeared before Court along with respondents 4 and 5. Possibilities of a harmonious settlement were explored and the parties were sent back with direction to come today. W.P.(Crl.) No. 368 of 2010 2 3. Today when the case is called, petitioner is present. He is represented by a counsel. The alleged detenue is also present. She is also represented by a counsel. 4. The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she is not under illegal detention or confinement of any one. According to her, she is residing along with her parents as per her genuine and willing consent. She does not want to return along with the petitioner. There is strain in the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue has already initiated O.P.(HMA) 629 of 2010 for divorce and O.P. 689 of 2010 to get back the patrimonial amounts - both before the Family Court, Alappuzha. A petition under the Domestic Violence Act is pending as M.C. 80 of 2010 before the J.F.C.M. Kayamkulam. In these circumstances the alleged detenue asserts that she is not under illegal detention or confinement and she may be permitted to return from Court along with her father, 4th respondent, with whom she has come to Court. 5. According to the petitioner, he is willing to take the alleged detenue and their children along with him. The children were produced W.P.(Crl.) No. 368 of 2010 3 on the last date of posting, but they are not produced today on the plea that the children are not well. The petitioner prays that he may atleast be given opportunity to meet, interact with and keep custody of his children. 6. In a petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are convinced that the alleged detenue and her children are not under illegal detention or confinement of respondents 4 and 5. We take note of the submission of the alleged detenue that she wants to leave the court with the 4th respondent and does not want to go with the petitioner. She has no interest in continuing the marital relationship, she asserts. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Writ Petition can now be dismissed. No directions under Article 226 of the Constitution deserve to be issued. 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed. W.P.(Crl.) No. 368 of 2010 4 b) The alleged detenue, who has come to Court, is permitted to leave the court along with the 4th respondent, her father. c) We may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way affect the rights of the petitioner to claim restitution of conjugal rights or to claim custody of his children. (R.BASANT) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm