IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 358 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BINOJ S.O., MANOJ BHAVAN, ERUMOODU, ARYANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAMLA BEEVI, HASHIM MANZIL, PALLIVETTA, ARYANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 2. RAFEEQ, HASHIM MANZIL, PALLIVETTA, ARYANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 3. SHAFEEQ,HASHIM MANZIL, PALLIVETTA, ARYANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANADU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. KAMAPPU ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P.(Cri)No.358 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT 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 Jasmin, a young woman, aged about 18 years (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue') - date of birth 02.10.1992. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue is a Plus Two student. She was in love with the petitioner. They had decided to get married. They had undergone some ceremony of marriage, on the basis of which, according to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenue have become legally married. On the basis of a complaint by the relatives of the alleged detenue, a crime was registered by the police and the alleged detenue was produced before the Magistrate. Before the Magistrate, there was a dispute about the correct age of the alleged detenue - as to whether she is a major as shown in the school register or whether she is a minor actually. In the light of that dispute, the W.P.(Cri)No.358 of 2010 - 2 - alleged detenue went with the 1st respondent, her maternal grandmother. She was so sent by the court with direction to produce birth certificate to show the correct age. Birth certificate has not been produced yet. School certificate shows that she is a major. According to the petitioner, after the alleged detenue was taken away from the Magistrate's Court by the 1st respondent, the alleged detenue was being illegally detained and confined by respondents 1 to 3. She was not being permitted to contact the petitioner. She was not being permitted to come out of the house; and she was not being permitted to attend the school. The petitioner apprehended that the alleged detenue was forcibly removed to some orphanage by respondents 1 to 3. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 09.09.2010. 2. This petition was admitted on 09.09.2010 and notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Respondents 1 and 2 W.P.(Cri)No.358 of 2010 - 3 - have come to Court. They are represented by a counsel. Along with them, the alleged detenue has also come to Court. 4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 1st and 2nd respondents, who allegedly are detaining her, we did not have exhaustive interaction with the alleged detenue in Court. We permitted her to remain in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone to interact with her. In response to a specific query by this Court, the alleged detenue stated that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with her in the presence of the respondent no.1 and the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 6. The alleged detenue asserts before us that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. She asserts that she is now accommodated at the Islamia Arabic College, Kayamkulam. She is there on her own desire and she is not illegally confined or detained there. She stated before us W.P.(Cri)No.358 of 2010 - 4 - categorically that she does not want to have any relationship with the petitioner. According to the alleged detenue, she does not want to go with the petitioner. In reply to a specific query by this Court, the alleged detenue stated that, given a chance, she would like to return from Court along with respondents 1 and 2. She would like to continue her studies at the Islamia Arabic College, Kayamkulam. 7. There are various areas of disputes between the parties. We do not think it necessary to advert to any of those disputes in detail. 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 satisfied from the statement of the alleged detenue that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. In the absence of any better material produced before Court, we will at the moment accept that the alleged detenue is a major with date of birth 15.05.1992 as shown in her Secondary School Leaving Certificate. We are satisfied that the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue can be respected and she can be permitted to return from Court as desired by her along with W.P.(Cri)No.358 of 2010 - 5 - the 1st respondent, her maternal grandmother. The mother of the alleged detenue is employed abroad, it is submitted. There has been disagreements between the father and mother of the alleged detenue and the father of the alleged detenue is at Trivandrum, it is submitted. He has not chosen to come before Court. 8. In the course of our interactions, both sides agree that they shall not hereafter indulge in any vexatious or retaliatory proceedings against each other. It is brought to our notice that proceedings have already been initiated before the Family Court, Nedumanganad, as O.P.No.957 of 2010 and O.P.No.936 of 2010 by the parties. Parties shall be at liberty to raise appropriate contentions before the Family Court in such proceedings. We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on the legal status of the parties. 9. Both sides air an apprehension that they may be subjected to threat and physical harassment by the other side. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 4 to 7 submits that if there is any genuine grievance of any improper culpable conduct on the part of any of the parties, the aggrieved W.P.(Cri)No.358 of 2010 - 6- party can approach respondents 4 to 7 and the needful shall be done by respondents 4 to 7 to effectively redress such grievance. Parties agree not to indulge in any such conduct. 10. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) The alleged detenue Jasmin is permitted to leave Court along with respondents 1 and 2 as desired by her. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/