IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 337 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, MULLASSERIL PATHALIL, NEAR RISHIKESH TEMPLE, KADAMMANITTA, NARANGANAM, ARANMULA,. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SMT.TULASI PANICKER SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.C.N.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA,689 533. 3. MANOJKUMAR,S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MATTAYCKAL HOUSE, KOIPPURAM, NELLIMALA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 542. 4. PRABHAKARAN,MATTAYCKAL HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 5. SANOJ, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MATTAYCKAL HOUSE, -DO- -DO- GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI K J MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1&2 ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI FOR ADDL.R5 SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant J., The petitioner has approached this Court again with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce his daughter - Sasikala S, aged 25 years (date of birth 27.9.1984). The petitioner had come to this Court earlier with an identical petition and the same was disposed of by judgment dated 18.5.2010, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. That disposal was on the basis of agreement/ settlement of the parties. 2. The present grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged detenue, his daughter, who had returned along with him, as per Ext.P2 judgment on 18.5.2010 and who was residing with him till 10.8.2010, is again missing from 10.8.2010. According to him, the alleged detenue was is being detained by the third respondent. W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S 2 3. This petition had come up for admission on 20.8.2010. We were not persuaded to admit this writ petition. We posted this case for hearing on admission to 30.8.2010. 4. On 30.8.2010, when the case was called, the alleged detenue chose to enter appearance through a counsel. According to the counsel, the alleged detenue had come to know of the pendency of this proceedings and hence she was choosing to enter appearance. We posted the case to this date for appearance of the alleged detenue as offered by the learned counsel and to enable the alleged detenue to file a detailed affidavit. 5. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The alleged detenue has appeared in person before this court. She is represented by a counsel. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the alleged detenue. 6. We permitted the alleged detenue and her father to inter act with each other during the pre - lunch session. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Subsequently, we interacted with the petitioner. Later, we W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S 3 interacted with both of them in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the alleged detenue, counsel for the third respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. The third respondent is not present before this Court. The petitioner asserted that the third respondent was present before the Court, when the case was called in the morning. The learned counsel for the third respondent accepted that assertion; but stated before us that the third respondent, an advocate himself is not at present available before the court, as he had to urgently leave in connection with some other professional work. 7. In our interactions with the alleged detenue, the alleged detenue stated that though she had returned along with the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P2 judgment, she does not want to continue residence along with her father - the petitioner. She adamantly asserts that she does not want to return with her father. It is her version in the affidavit that she has joined for M.B.L course. She is residing along with a friend of hers at Bangalore. She intends to join a hostel and she wants to continue her studies. W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S 4 Inasmuch as she is not under any illegal detention or confinement, she prays that this writ petition may be dismissed. 8. The petitioner and his counsel assert that the alleged detenue is not living along with any friend. She does not really intends to continue her education. She is living along with the third respondent and it is the third respondent who brought her to this Court, this morning, asserts the petitioner. 9. 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 confinement or detention. In this case, we are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an adult major woman, aged 26 years. She is an advocate and she is aware of her rights. She can be presumed to be aware of her responsibilities. She is competent to take a decision affecting her future. The third respondent is admittedly a married person. He has another wife. It is submitted that he has already filed an application for divorce and same is pending. The wife of the third respondent has not agreed for divorce and therefore the petition pending is not one for divorce W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S 5 by mutual consent, submits the alleged detenue. 10. We see the unfortunate plight of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he had done everything possible to make the stay of the alleged detenue with him comfortable and happy. He had also taken steps to obtain a Visa for the alleged detenue and he had invested necessary amounts to send her to England to continue her studies, as desired by her. She now states that she does not want to go with the petitioner. She asserts that she has no improper relationship with the third respondent. 11. We find reason to feel that the assertions of the petitioner are correct. Be that as it may, we must respect the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue, an adult major woman aged about 25 years and an advocate by profession. We accept her assertion that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. In this jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are not to preside over the morality of the course chosen by the alleged detenue. The petitioner can have the satisfaction that he had made all possible efforts, prior to Ext.P2 and thereafter to ensure that his W.P. (Crl.) No.337 of 2010S 6 daughter is saved from having an improper relationship with a person already in valid matrimony. We are not persuaded to agree that any direction need be issued in this writ petition. 12. In the result: (a) This petition is dismissed. (b) We accept the submission of the alleged detenue that she may be permitted to leave this court alone on her own and permit her to choose to follow whatever course that she wants to. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/