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 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 173 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABRAHAM MATHEW, S/O.ABRAHAM MATHAI, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUVONAM HOUSE, VALIYAVEEDU ROAD, AAKULAM P.O., THURUVICKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695031. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.P.M.BINOY KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.BINESH, S/O.JOHN KURIAN, BEHIND ULLAS NAGAR RAILWAY STATION, BOMBAY-421003. 4. JOHN KURIAN @ THOMASKUTTY, BEHIND ULLAS NAGAR RAILWAY STATION, BOMBAY-421003. 5. ANEESH, S/O.JOHN KURIAN, BEHING ULLAS NAGAR RAILWAY STATION, BOMBAY-421003. 6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BOMBAY, MAHARASHTRA STATE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 2nd day of July, 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 his daughter-Reena Mathew, a young woman, aged 23 years (date of birth 11.03.1987). She has passed her post graduate degree in Business Economics (M.A). She is missing from 03.05.2010 and the petitioner apprehended that his daughter was under the illegal detention and confinement of respondent Nos.3 to 5. The 3rd and 5th respondents are brothers and the 4th respondent is the father of respondent Nos.3 and 5. A complaint was filed before the police. A crime was registered as Crime No.425 of 2010 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. As the alleged detenue was not traced by the police, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 17.05.2010. This petition was admitted on 18.05.2010. Directions were issued from time to time by this Court. 2. This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier directions in the matter resting with the order dated 28.06.2010. W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 2 3. The case actually stands posted to 05.07.2010. It has been advanced on the basis of the submission of the learned Government Pleader yesterday(01.07.2010) before Court that the alleged detenue's presence can be secured before Court today. Accordingly the case was advanced and the matter was posted to this date. 4. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Along with him, his wife and younger daughter have also come to Court. The 3rd respondent along with the alleged detenue has come before this Court. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the 3rd respondent, who was allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone else to interact with her. We permitted the petitioner, his wife and younger daughter to interact with the alleged detenue. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner, his wife and younger daughter as also the 3rd respondent. 6. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not under illegal detention or confinement of the 3rd W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 3 respondent. The alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent were in love. They have got married in accordance with law. She has produced a certificate of marriage No.17 of 2010 issued by the Parish Priest of St.Joseph's Malankara Catholic Church, Vadolgaon, Ullasnagar, to confirm that marriage between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent has been solemnised in accordance with law and registered. The marriage had taken place under the Special Marriage Act on 10.06.2010. A certificate of marriage No.SPLM/THNI/2010/517 dated 10.06.2010 issued by the Marriage Officer, Thane is also produced to confirm that the marriage between the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue has taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 10.06.2010, notice for the same having earlier been given on 05.05.2010. It is on the basis of such marriage that the Church marriage certificate has later been issued on 29.06.2010. 7. Copies of the marriage certificates have been handed over to the petitioner. 8. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 4 satisfied that the alleged detenue in this case is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this petition can now be dismissed. The petitioner submits that the petitioner now accepts the marriage between his daughter Reena Mathew and the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent bears the name Kurien John and the name Binesh shown as the 3rd respondent in this petition is his pet name. 9. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court along with the 3rd respondent as desired by both of them. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. W.P(Crl.) No.173 of 2010 6 The learned Government Pleader submits that the Commissioner of Police has filed a statement. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that the alleged detenue shall be made available before Court within a period of 2 or 3 days. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader and post the case to 05.07.2010. The Commissioner of Police is not present personally. It is submitted that he has already started from Trivandrum and is held up in the traffic block. The Commissioner of Police shall ensure that the alleged detenue is produced on 05.07.2010. If the alleged detenue is not produced on that day, the Commissioner of Police shall present personally on that day and explain to the Court the reasons for that. The Deputy Commissioner of Police is present personally. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/