IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 345 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- ARUN RAJAN, S/O.P.M.DEVARAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PULLIYIL HOUSE, KALADY, KUNNATHUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY. 3. T.D.PAULOSE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM, KALADY, KUNNATHUNADU. 4. ROSY, W/O.T.D.PAULOSE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM, KALADY, KUNNATHUNADU. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 345 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Ms. Chitra, who, the petitioner alleged, is his wife and who, according to him, is being illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4 - her parents. 2. This writ petition was filed on 24/8/09. It was admitted on the same day and notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date. 3. When the case came up for hearing today, the petitioner and his counsel are present. Respondents 3 and 4 have come to Court along with the alleged detenue Ms. Chithra. They are also represented by a counsel. W.P.(Cri) No. 345 of 2009-S -: 2 :- 4. As the petitioner alleges that respondents 3 and 4 are illegally detaining the alleged detenue and the alleged detenue came to Court from their custody, we thought it necessary to give the alleged detenue some time to reflect and ponder uninfluenced by any one. Accordingly, we permitted her to remain in the Chamber without opportunity for any one to interact with her. 5. After the lunch recess we interacted with Ms. Chithra. She asserts that she is a major woman she having already attained the age of 19 years and her date of birth being 25/8/90. According to her, she was doing her Engineering second year course and had a love relationship with the petitioner herein. They have executed an agreement, copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. It is also averred and not disputed that some form of marriage was undergone by the petitioner and the alleged detenue Ms.Chithra. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether a valid matrimony is thereby created or not. 6. Be that as it may, we interacted with the alleged detenue and respondents 3 and 4. We interacted with them W.P.(Cri) No. 345 of 2009-S -: 3 :- jointly and separately. We perceived the need to permit the petitioner and the alleged detenue to speak to each other and permission for such interaction was given after informing respondents 3 and 4. After such interaction, we again interacted with all the parties in the presence of their learned counsel and also the learned Government Pleader. 7. Ms. Chithra categorically stated that she wants to complete her education and that she now wants to return with respondents 3 and 4. 8. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus like the instant one we need only ascertain whether the alleged detenue has been detained against her will and wishes by any one. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that there is no such illegal detention or confinement. In response to our specific query, Ms. Chithra stated categorically that she wants to return from Court along with respondents 3 and 4. We accept her decision and we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. W.P.(Cri) No. 345 of 2009-S -: 4 :- 9. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We permit Ms. Chithra to return from Court along with respondents 3 and 4 - her parents, with whom she has come to Court, as desired by her. R. BASANT (Judge) M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ W.P.(Cri) No. 345 of 2009-S -: 5 :-