IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 245 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REJESH AGED 28,S/O.VIJAYAN, REJESH BHAVAN, VAZHAPPALLY, KOTTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOJ RAJAN SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIURUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHANDRIKA W/O.MOHANAN, 'HIMAM'PACHAKKAD, KUTTICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.245 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th 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 Mrs.Nayana, a young woman, aged 22 years (date of birth : 19/04/1988) and her daughter, Lena aged 3 years. The petitioner, in the petition, asserted that he and the alleged detenue Mrs.Nayana were in love. They had got married. The mother of the alleged detenue, the 3rd respondent herein, filed an application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce her daughter before Court. She was produced before Court and by judgment dated 12/6/2006, another Bench of this Court permitted the alleged detenue to go with her husband, the petitioner herein. They were thus living happily after their marriage. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenues were forcibly detained by the 3rd respondent, her mother from 18/6/2010. When the petitioner came back home on 18/06/2010, the alleged detenues were not there and he came to know that the alleged detenues were taken away by the 3rd respondent and W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 2 : other relatives of hers. As the petitioner was not able to interact with his wife, the alleged detenue, he came to this Court on 24/6/2010 with this petition complaining that his wife is under illegal detention and confinement of the 3rd respondent. He further alleged that his child is also being detained by the 3rd respondent under confinement. 2. When this petition came up for hearing on 25/6/2010, we were not inclined to admit this petition and directed the learned Government Pleader to take instructions. The case was then adjourned to 05/07/2010. 3. On 05/07/2010, the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent appeared before Court. The child was also brought to Court by the alleged detenue. 4. This judgment must be read in continuation of our order dated 08/07/2010. On that date, we sent the alleged detenue back from Court along with the 3rd respondent. We wanted the parties to explore the possibilities of a harmonious settlement. 5. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The 3rd respondent W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 3 : and the alleged detenues have come to Court. The 3rd respondent is also represented by her counsel. 6. We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Later, we interacted with the alleged detenue and the petitioner in the presence of one sister and cousin of the petitioner. Subsequently, we interacted with the petitioner and the alleged detenue in the presence of the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 7. In the course of our interactions, the alleged detenue does not raise any complaint against her mother, the 3rd respondent; but submits that she has now taken the decision to go along with the petitioner. She along with the child wants to go with him and they want to reside together. She admitted before us that there were some problems between the relatives of the petitioner and her, particularly her mother-in-law. But she stated that she accepts the request of the petitioner to return along with him. She and their child, therefore, want to go along with the petitioner. She only requests that it may be ensured W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 4 : that other relatives of the petitioner do not come in and spoil the relationship between her and the petitioner. Others may not be permitted to interfere with their life, she prays. The petitioner Sri.Rajesh submits that he is willing to do anything to win back his wife and child. He submits that he shall take up residence away from the residence of his mother so that the alleged detenue shall not have any difficulties or problems from his relatives. He agrees to give any undertaking before Court in writing, if necessary, to assure the alleged detenue and the Court that he shall not, in any way, cause any difficulties to be faced by the alleged detenue. The sister and cousin of the petitioner (Smt.Suja and Smt.Himaja) also undertake before Court that they or the mother of the petitioner shall not, in any way, cause any difficulties for the harmonious and peaceful residence together of the petitioner, the alleged detenue and their child. They can reside wherever they want in peace and harmony and the relatives of the petitioner will not, in any way, even go to them, they submit. On behalf of the mother of the petitioner, Smt.Suja, his sister, undertakes that the mother shall not go to the house of the petitioner and the alleged detenue or W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 5 : interfere with their peaceful marital life. 8. The petitioner Sri.Rajesh further undertakes that he and the alleged detenue shall continue their studies and shall appear for the Degree final year examinations, at the earliest. He undertakes to take a house on rent away from the place of residence of his mother and to live with the alleged detenue and child in such residence. The petitioner Sri.Rajesh undertakes that he shall give all necessary protection, patronage and support for his wife, the alleged detenue. 9. Later, in our interactions with the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent narrates her tale of woes. According to her, this alliance is not between equals. There is such a lot of difference between the spouses. Her daughter has been subjected to matrimonial cruelty. She apprehends danger to her daughter, if she were permitted to go with the petitioner. She states that she is unwilling to accept the petitioner and the alleged detenue and their relationship. To a pointed query, she states that she is unwilling to accommodate both of them along with her at her residence. She wants the alleged detenue and her child to leave the petitioner and join her. In that event, she undertakes that W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 6 : the alleged detenue and the child shall be well looked after to the best of her ability and brought up. 10. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We note that the petitioner and the alleged detenue have remained married for a period of four years and a child, aged about 3 years, is born in the wedlock. Their marriage was without the consent of the parents and relatives of the alleged detenue. They lived together for a period of about four years. On account of some disagreements that developed, the alleged detenue had returned to the house of her mother, the 3rd respondent along with her child. She now wants to return along with her husband. Notwithstanding the unwillingness and the disapproval of the 3rd respondent, we are satisfied that we have to respect the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue. Her desire that she must be permitted to live along with the petitioner, her husband with her child, we find, is most legitimate, reasonable and proper. We are unable to agree that the 3rd respondent's request can be accepted. The 3rd respondent asserts that if that is the decision of the alleged detenue, the Court must ensure that she does not return ever to the 3rd respondent. After the alleged W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 7 : detenue had returned to the 3rd respondent, she was given certain ornaments to wear. The 3rd respondent demanded and the alleged detenue promptly returned those gold ornaments to the 3rd respondent. In fact, the alleged detenue had stated before us even earlier that she wants to return those ornaments which her mother had permitted her to wear. 11. The petitioner and the alleged detenue request that the case may be posted to a later date to enable the Court to monitor the progress made. They have proposals to take up employment elsewhere and set up residence. For the day, they agree that they will go along with the cousin of the petitioner Smt.Himaja and stay there for a couple of days before they finalise their further plans. We accept the request of the petitioner and the alleged detenue and direct that the case may be posted to some other date for us to be appraised of the future developments and compliance with the agreements and undertakings made by the petitioner. 12. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed. b) The alleged detenue Mrs.Nayana along with her child W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 8 : Lena, aged 3 years, who have come to Court today as also on 08/07/2010 along with the 3rd respondent are permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner. 13. Both sides (i.e. the petitioner and the 3rd respondent) apprehend that there may be difficulties caused to them by the other. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that the local police, that is the Neyyar Dam police shall be instructed to ensure that there are no problems or difficulties caused to either side by the other. 14. Call this petition again on 20/08/2010 for further submissions of the parties. We direct the petitioner and the alleged detenue to appear before Court on 20/08/2010. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 9 : W.P.(Crl) 245/10 : 10 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009