IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 479 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- SIYO.P, S/O.T.V.PARTHASIS, AGED 40 YEARS, THEKKEKARA, VAPPALASSERY P.O., ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 572. BY ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMAD SAVAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA-683 101. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 585. 3. GYPSON GILBERT, RESIDING AT THOTTUKUKATHU HOUSE, ST.THOMAS PURAM, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 304. Addl.resp. 4. SRI. JOSE, RESIDING AT NIRAVATH HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN - 24. 5. MERCY JOSE, W/O JOSE, RESIDING AT NIRAVATH HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN - 24. * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4&5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 IN IA NO.16803/2011 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER R. PADMARAJAN R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(Crl.).No. 479 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE VISA OF ANU @ ANN BRIGITHA. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT. R4(a): COPY OF THE E-MAIL. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl) NO. 479 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner complains that his wife, who was in U.K. in connection with her studies had come to India, but has not reached his house or her paternal house. Additional respondents 4 and 5, who are the parents of the girl, filed counter affidavit stating that their daughter is in U.K. on her own will and wish. They also stated that their daughter spoke over phone to their learned advocates and has sent Ext. R4(a) e- mail to the advocates. We have gone through the contents of Ext. R4(a) . We, in the light of the counter affidavit of additional respondents 4 and 5, feel that credibility can be attached to Ext. R4(a) as the detenue has given her version and reason for not contacting the petitioner. We also see that she is in U.K. The investigating police also contacted the detenue over phone using W.P.(Crl) NO. 479 OF 2011 2 the phone number given by the parents of the detenue. With this, Ext. R4(a) e-mail also contains the statement by her that she is not illegally detained by anybody. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the 3rd respondent is now proceeding to sponsor the lady and is even trying to move her from U.K. to another nation. We need not determine that in a habeas corpus request under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is closed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE bka/-