IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 260 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUMESH, S/O. VASU, MACHANGALATH HOUSE, NANNAMUKKU SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 2. DY.S.P. OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM. 3. S.I.OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. VANAJA, W/O. SUKUMARAN, KOLAKKATT HOUSE, P.O.NANNAMUKKU SOUTH - 679575, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. SUVI, S/O.SUKUMARAN, -DO- -DO- BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(CRL) NO. 260 OF 2010 ============================ DATED THIS THE 8th 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 trace for and produce the alleged detenue Ms.Simiya, a woman aged about 20 years, a B.Com. degree holder with whom the petitioner has allegedly entered into a valid marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 2. According to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenue Simiya were in love. They had decided to get married. They had solemnised their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 23/3/2010. The said Simiya continued to reside at her parental home. There is a dispute as to whether there has been residence together for one day. The parents of the alleged detenue Simiya are not in favour of the marital tie between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. The father of the alleged detenue is employed abroad. Her mother, the 6th WPCRL.260/2010 2 respondent herein and her brother, the 7th respondent, were according to the petitioner, detaining and confining the alleged detenue, Simiya. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. 3. This petition was filed on 29/6/2010. It was admitted on 30/6/2010. The case was initially posted to 6/7/2010. On that day, the case was adjourned to this date. 4. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by a counsel. Respondents 6 and 7 have appeared before court. Along with them, the alleged detenue Simiya has also come to court. 5. As the alleged detenue comes to court along with/in the custody of respondents 6 and 7, who are allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone to interact with her. To a specific query in court, the alleged detenue replied to us that she does not want to interact with or speak to the petitioner. 6. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of respondents 6 WPCRL.260/2010 3 and 7. Subsequently, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of the petitioner also. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 7. The alleged detenue asserts that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. According to her, her mother and brother are not in any way detaining her or restraining her movements. While she accepts that the marriage has been registered, according to her, she does not want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. Necessary steps shall be taken/are being taken to avoid Ext.P1, it is submitted. The learned Government Pleader submits that a crime has been registered in the matter and the alleged detenue was produced before the learned Magistrate on 1/7/2010. There also the alleged detenue had stated that she was not under confinement. According to the petitioner, he did not get opportunity to interact with the alleged detenue there. 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 confinement or detention. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the alleged detenue is not WPCRL.260/2010 4 under any illegal confinement or detention. Though we attempted to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement either for reunion or to part as a friends, we are informed that such harmonious settlement cannot be reached now. 9. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 10. In the result, a) this writ petition is dismissed. b)the alleged detenue Simiya is permitted to leave the court along with respondents 6 and 7 with whom she has come to court as desired by her. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. WPCRL.260/2010 5