IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 248 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.N.BABU, S/O.NATESAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM SMT.O.H.NAZEEBA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAJESH, S/O.GOPI, CHINGATTUPURATH HOUSE, MALAVAN THOPPIL, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ROSHAN, WORKING AS PHOTOGRAPHER, KALA STUDIO, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. GOPI, CHINGATTUPURATH HOUSE, MALAVANA THOPIL, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. MARIYAM, W/O.GOPI, CHINGATTUPURATH HOUSE MALAVANA THOPPIL, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA FOR R3, 5 & 6 SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY FOR R3, 5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(Crl.) No.248 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court complaining that his daughter Reshma, aged about 21 years, studying for B.Sc. Computer Science course, was missing from 27.06.09. He suspected that his daughter, though a major woman, was being detained illegally by the 3rd respondent, his friend-the 4th respondent and his parents-the 5th and 6th respondents. He has filed this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to trace his daughter, the alleged detenue Ms.Reshma, to produce her before Court and to set her at liberty. 2. The petition was admitted on 01.07.09. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner and his counsel are present. Respondent Nos.3,5 and 6 are present. The 6th respondent points out to the Court that her real name is Radha. The alleged detenue has also appeared before Court along with respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. W.P(Crl.) No.248 of 2009 2 3. It is submitted that the police had produced the alleged detenue before the learned Magistrate on 03.07.09 and the learned Magistrate realising that she is an adult woman and was not under confinement of anyone had permitted her to leave the court and be with respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. 4. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the Chamber during the pre-lunch session and permitted the petitioner to interact with his daughter. She was not permitted to meet anyone else during this period. After lunch, we interacted with all concerned at the Chamber. The alleged detenue submits that she is not under detention or confinement by anyone. She has already attained majority and has crossed the age of 20 years, she having been born on 17.05.1989. The alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent submit that they have already got married in accordance with Hindu religious rites at the Chottanikkara Devi Temple on 30.06.09. They have shown to Court a receipt for Rs.325/- dated 30.06.09 issued by the Chottanikkara Devi Temple for having received the said amount as `Vivaha Vazhipadu'. It is thus the case of the alleged detenue, the 3rd respondent, his parents, the 5th and 6th respondents that the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue are legally married W.P(Crl.) No.248 of 2009 3 and are husband and wife. When we probed further, it is submitted that the 3rd respondent Reji has an alias name Jerry. The 5th respondent has an alias name Ouseph and the real name of the 6th respondent is Radha though she is known by an alias name Mariyam. Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 who are present before us assert before us that though they are attracted by the Christian principles in life, they continue to be Hindu-Ezhavas. There has been no conversion, they all do assert before us. We record that fact because the petitioner, the father of the detenue, entertains a doubt as to whether the 3rd respondent is a Christian or Hindu and whether the said marriage allegedly solemnised on 30.06.09 at the Chottanikkara Devi Temple is a legal marriage or not. 5. At this juncture, respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 submits that to allay any apprehension on this aspect, it may be recorded that they are Hindu-Ezhavas and have not been converted into Christianity so far. They further submit that to further allay apprehensions, if any, of the petitioner, the marriage between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent shall be registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and the W.P(Crl.) No.248 of 2009 4 certificate of registration will be produced before the Court on the next date of posting. 6. The petitioner and his counsel submit that the petitioner is now willing to accept the marriage between the 3rd respondent and his daughter Reshma, the alleged detenue and that he is willing to send his daughter Reshma with the 3rd respondent now. To show such acceptance by him, he has today handed over to his daughter gold ornaments said to weigh 15 sovereigns. When she came to the Chamber after lunch we found her wearing those gold ornaments. The petitioner submits that, in these circumstances, he has no objection whatsoever in his daughter the alleged detenue Reshma going back from the Court along with the 3rd respondent as desired by respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 as also his daughter, the alleged detenue Reshma. 7. We accept the submission of the 3rd, 5th and 6 respondents as also the alleged detenue that the marriage shall be solemnised/registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and the certificate of registration will be produced for the perusal of the Court on the next date of posting. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. This Writ W.P(Crl.) No.248 of 2009 5 Petition is accordingly dismissed. The alleged detenue Reshma is permitted to leave the Court along with the 3rd respondent and his parents as desired by her and the 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents and as agreed by the petitioner herein. 9. Call this petition again on 24.08.09 for production of the certificate of marriage to be obtained under the Special Marriage Act. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-