IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 330 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- EBY, AGED 30, S/O.SURENDRAN, POOVANKUDY HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM KARA, KALADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALI, PIN - 683 572. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANADU - PIN 683 578. 4. SUDHAN, AGED 55 PLAPPILLIKUDY HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O., 683 579. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPCR 330/2011: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF MARRIGE DATED 14.3.2011. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 5.7.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESONDENT. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl.) No.330 of 2011-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of Sethulakshmi, the daughter of the 4th respondent. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: He fell in love with the alleged detenue. They belong to the same community. Ext.P1 is the certificate evidencing the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue which is conducted with the blessings of the parents and relatives of the petitioner, but without co-operation of the 4th respondent. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner and the alleged detenue were meeting occasionally. It is stated that about two weeks back the alleged detenue informed the petitioner that her father is not willing to accept the relationship and she will come back to the petitioner and the petitioner was waiting for this. Suddenly, about 10 days back the contacts with the alleged detenue was cut off. Allegation of illegal detention is made against the 4th respondent. 2. Today, the alleged detenue was present. We interacted with her. She would say that she is not under any WPCR 330/2011 -2- illegal detention and she went on her own and she does not want to go with the petitioner. We allowed the petitioner to interact with the alleged detenue for some time. Thereafter, again we called the case. The alleged detenue persevered in her stand. We also interacted with the 4th respondent. We also heard the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the alleged detenue has in fact filed a petition for annulling the marriage evidenced by Ext.P1 which is pending. 3. Having regard to all circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case of illegal detention as such. Accordingly, we close the Writ Petition (Criminal). This will be without prejudice to the rights available to the parties under the law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS