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 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 489 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INTIATED ON A PETITION RECEIVED FROM SRI.AHMED RAWTHER, PATHANAMTHITTA REGARDING MISSING OF HIS DAUGHTER KUM.SABEENA. BY ADV. K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN (AMICUS CURIAE) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDHALAM POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.489 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This Writ Petition has been registered on the basis of a letter received by the High Court from the petitioner herein. In such letter, the petitioner complained to the High Court that his adult daughter aged 19 years, Sabeena by name has been missing from 30.9.2009. Even though he complained before the police, no effective action was taken by the police to trace his daughter and it is hence that he complained before Court. 2. The said petition after due observance of the procedures, was registered by the Registry as a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. Notice was ordered to respondents 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader appeared for respondents 1 to 3. Assuming that the petitioner may not be able to afford legal assistance, Adv.Shri K.A.Salil Narayanan was requested to render legal aid to the petitioner and render service to this Court as amicus curiae. The learned Government Pleader reported that investigation had revealed that the alleged detenue was not W.P.(Crl.)No.489/09 -2- under any confinement or detention and had willingly and voluntarily eloped with one Krishnakumar, son of Krishna Pillai, Vadakkadath House, Pullikkanakku, P.O. Kayamkulam. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that on coming to know of the crime registered by the police as Crime No.805/09 of Panthalam Police Station, the alleged detenue and the said Krishnakumar had appeared before the J.F.C.M., Adoor on 9.11.2009. The learned Magistrate on being satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement, had permitted her to accompany the said Krishnakumar. As directed by this Court, the learned Government Pleader ensured that the petitioner as also the alleged detenue and the said Krishnakumar appear before this Court today. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. His wife, that is, the mother of the alleged detenue has also come to Court along with him. Adv.Shri Salil Narayanan is also present before Court. The alleged detenue and the said Krishnakumar have appeared before this Court. They are represented by a counsel. W.P.(Crl.)No.489/09 -3- 4. As the alleged detenue has come to Court along with the said Krishnakumar, we permitted her to remain in the Chamber, without opportunity for anyone to influence her. We permitted the petitioner and his wife to interact with the alleged detenue, even though the alleged detenue initially did not accept that idea. 5. After lunch hour, we interacted with the alleged detenue separately initially, but later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we interacted with all of them in the presence of Shri Krishnakumar. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the alleged detenue and the said Krishnakumar that they were in love, that the barriers of religion did not stand in the way of their love and that they had eloped with the intention of getting married. On 8.10.2009, they got the marriage performed/solemnised at a local temple. However, on realising that such solemnisation of marriage in accordance with the Hindu rites may not be legally sufficient, they proceeded to issue notice under the Special Marriage Act. Their marriage has subsequently been registered under the W.P.(Crl.)No.489/09 -4- Special Marriage Act. Certificate No.20/09 issued by the Marriage Officer, Kayamkulam to confirm that the marriage between the alleged detenue and the said Krishnakumar has taken place on 10.11.2009 in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act has been produced before us. 7. In our interactions with the alleged detenue, we are convinced that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention of the said Krishnakumar. We are completely satisfied that she has willingly and voluntarily got married to the said Krishnakumar and now the spouses are leading a happy, healthy and harmonious life together. They have occupied a rented building. The alleged detenue asserts that she does not want to return with her parents and wants to return from Court along with her husband, the said Krishnakumar. 8. The petitioner and his wife submit that there is an elder daughter for them and that the prospects of her respectable marriage may be affected by this inter religious marriage between the alleged detenue and the said Krishnakumar. They request that the alleged detenue may be permitted to return W.P.(Crl.)No.489/09 -5- along with them. She can go back to the said Krishnakumar after three months with their blessings, after the marriage of the elder daughter is performed. While the petitioner/father states that he does not want to insist on any religious conversion of the said Krishnakumar to purchase acceptance from him, the wife, i.e., the mother of the alleged detenue takes an adamant stand that conversion has to take place, if the relationship were to be accepted by her. 9. At any rate, the alleged detenue is not willing to return along with her parents. She asserts that she must be permitted to return along with the said Krishnakumar. 10. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether there is any illegal detention or confinement. We are more than satisfied that there is none. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue has to be respected and she must be permitted to return along with Shri Krishnakumar, with whom she appears to have entered into a perfectly legal and valid marriage under the Special Marriage W.P.(Crl.)No.489/09 -6- Act. 11. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed. The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court along with the said Krishnakumar with whom she has come to Court today. The certificate of registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act dated 10.11.2009 and certificate issued by the temple authorities of Valiyakulangara Vadakkekkara Devaswom are returned to the alleged detenue, after perusal. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn