IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 44 of 2009(S) PETITIONER(S): ANOOP BABY, S/O. BABY, AGED 25 YEARS, NIRAVATH HOUSE, KALLAR KARA, VATTIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 2. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNNAR. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY. 5. KRISHNANKUTTY.E, S/O. ETTANKUNJU, AGED 59 YEARS, IRANIKATTU HOUSE, ADIMALY.P.O, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. K. RAJEEV, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS, IRANIKATTU HOUSE, ADIMALY.P.O, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. K. SUBHASH, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 25 YEARS, IRANIKATTU HOUSE, ADIMALY.P.O, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE -R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the Marriage Certificate dated 22.8.2008 of the petitioner. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. A.K. BASHEER & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.) No.44 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Ms. Mekha Krishnan, the alleged detenu has appeared before the Court along with respondent Nos. 6 and 7, her brothers. She stated before us that she wants to go with the petitioner who, she claims, is her husband. She stated that the marriage between her and the petitioner was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as is evident from Ext.P1 certificate issued by the competent authority. 2. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 stated before us that their father (respondent No.5) could not attend the Court since he is indisposed and that the only wish of the father is to give his daughter in marriage in a small ceremony. However, respondents 6 and 7 further stated that if their sister insists that she wants to go with the petitioner straight away, they have no objection in allowing her to do so. 3. We have interacted with Ms. Mekha Krishnan and the petitioner. W.P.(Crl)No.44/2009 2 Ms. Mekha Krishnan is stated to be 22 years of age while the petitioner is aged 25 years. Ms. Mekha Krishnan has passed her B.Com. examination and the petitioner is a final year L.L.B. student in Law Academy at Trivandrum. On interaction with the parties, we are satisfied that the decision taken by the petitioner and Ms. Mekha Krishnan to live as husband and wife has to be respected. Both of them appear to be quite mature. They appear to have taken the above decision after due deliberation. In the above facts and circumstances, Ms. Mekha Krishnan, daughter of respondent No.5 is allowed to go with the petitioner, if she chooses to do so. The Writ Petition is closed. (A.K. BASHEER) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(Crl)No.44/2009 3 A.K. BASHEER & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(Crl.) No.44/2009 JUDGMENT 6th February, 2009