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 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 402 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RUKKIYA BEEVI,D/O.ISHA BEEVI,AGED 45 YEARS, NEJIMI MANZIL,NEERAVIL, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM-691601. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM 691 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOOD-691 601. 3. NIKHIL @ KANNAN, S/O.RAJAN, DEVUPRABHA HOUSE, NORTH OF PERUMON IPS, PERUMON PO-691 601. 4. RAJAN, DEVUPRABHA HOUSE, NORTH OF PERUMON IPS, PERUMON PO-691 601. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON 13/10/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 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 her daughter Najia @ Kikki - a woman aged about 22 years (date of birth - 13/11/88). She has completed her M.C.A. Course and is now working as a teacher at Vimala Central School, Chathannoor. She was missing from her house on 5/10/10 and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner - mother of Najia, the alleged detenue, came to this Court with this petition on 8/10/10. 2. This petition was admitted on 8/10/10 and notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date. W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with her husband Najeem. The petitioner is represented by her counsel. The 3rd and 4th respondents have appeared before this Court. They are represented by their counsel. Along with them, the alleged detenue has also come to this Court. 4. As the alleged detenue - Najia has come to Court along with respondents 3 and 4 who allegedly are detaining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the Chamber without opportunity for any one to influence her. We did, however, permit the petitioner and her husband, the parents of the alleged detenue, to interact with her during the pre-lunch session. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we interacted with her in the presence of respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 as also the learned Government Pleader were present. 6. The alleged detenue states before us that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. The 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue are in love. They have already undergone some form of marriage before the Akhila Kerala W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010 -: 3 :- Misra Vivaha Samgham, P.O. Cherpu, Thrissur District. A Certificate No.27/10 dated 12/10/10 is produced to confirm that such a form of marriage has been performed. A letter dated 12/10/10 issued by the District Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Misra Vivaha Samgham is also produced to show that their marriage has been registered and the marriage certificate has been issued as Certificate No.27/10. The alleged detenue as well as the 3rd respondent request that they may be permitted to return together, they having already solemnized their marriage. The 4th respondent is the father of the 3rd respondent. He accepts the relationship between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent. He does not insist that the alleged detenue must convert from her faith to enable her to live as wife of the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent offers to take the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent to the house of the 4th respondent. 7. The petitioner and her husband are unable to accept the relationship between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent. According to them, they are not satisfied that the alleged detenue is taking an informed, independent unbiased and uninfluenced decision. They feel that the alleged detenue is not taking a prudent and wise decision. They pray that the W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010 -: 4 :- alleged detenue may be permitted to return along with them. They are willing to take her along with them. They are willing to take her only if she severs her relationship with the 3rd respondent and agrees to go with them. 8. We did attempt to ensure that the parties settle their disputes harmoniously. We find that the parties have not been able to settle their disputes. As stated earlier, the parents of the alleged detenue are unable to accept the relationship between their daughter and the 3rd respondent. The alleged detenue is unwilling to return along with her parents. Even the suggestion that the alleged detenue can be accommodated for sometime in a hostel with opportunity for her parents to interact with her so that her parents are satisfied that the alleged detenue has taken an informed decision after sufficient forethought was not accepted by the alleged detenue. In these circumstances, we find that a harmonious settlement is impossible in the facts of this case - at least, now. 9. In a petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. In this case, we are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention. She is a woman aged above W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010 -: 5 :- 21 years. She is an educated person, she being a teacher and a holder of M.C.A. degree. We respect her decisional autonomy. She appears to be in no mood to reconcile with the parents or to give them the satisfaction that they have had sufficient opportunity to interact with her before permitting her to leave with the 3rd respondent. Having convinced ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement, we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 10. We do, however, note that the marriage certificate issued by the Akhila Kerala Misra Vivaha Samgham does not admittedly reveal a legal and valid marriage between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent. The alleged detenue, the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent agree before us that if sufficient time were given, they shall get their marriage solemnized and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and shall produce the certificate of marriage before this Court. They further agree that till the marriage between the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue is solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue shall not cohabit as husband and wife. We accept those submissions. W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010 -: 6 :- 11. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) The alleged detenue is informed that she is at liberty to pursue whatever course she thinks is correct and best suited for her. 12. We record the submission of the alleged detenue that she wants to leave along with the 3rd respondent. 13. We record the submission of the alleged detenue and respondents 3 and 4 that the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent shall not cohabit as husband and wife till their marriage is solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 14. We record the submission of the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent that they shall produce before this Court certificate of marriage to confirm solemnization of their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, if sufficient time were given to them. 15. We do accordingly post this case to 30/11/10 to produce the marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act along with a copy thereof for being furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. We record that the petitioner and her husband, unable W.P.(Cri) No. 402 of 2010 -: 7 :- to stand the trauma of the proceedings, had gone away before we completed the dictation leaving their counsel with us to hear the dictation and help the Court. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge