IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 382 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BABU, 56 YEARS, S/O.VASU, THUNDUVILA VEEDU (RESHMA LAND), KULAMUTTAM P.O. VANKADAVU, KAVALIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAVOOR, TVPM 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, TVPM 6. VINOD, S/O.SIVAN, CHITRA BHAVAN, KODUTHUNGIKUNNU, KAVALAYUR, VARKALA. 7. BIJU, AUTO DRIVER, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, VANKADAVU, KAVALIYOOR. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl) No.382 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier order passed by us on 01.10.2010. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with the petitioner. The petitioner now accepts that the correct date of birth of the alleged detenue is 23.05.1992 as shown in the birth register issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death of Varkala Municipality, Trivandrum. On that aspect, there is no dispute between the parties now. The alleged detenue asserted before us last time that she wants to return along with the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent is himself a person below the age of 21 years and he is not legally competent to enter matrimony now. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent wants it to be recorded that the 6th respondent has not ever detained the alleged detenue against her wishes. That submission is recorded. 2. The alleged detenue, when she came to Court on 01.10.2010 stated that she wants to return along with the petitioner, her father. It was accordingly that she was sent back W.P(Crl) No.382 of 2010 2 on 01.10.2010 along with her parents. Today she states before us that she sticks to her decision that she wants to return along with her parents. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that if that is the desire of the alleged detenue, the 6th respondent does not want to raise any objection. 3. We are now satisfied that the alleged detenue wants to return along with her parents. We permit her to do so. She, it is now conceded at all hands, has crossed the age of 18 years. We respect the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue and are persuaded to grant her permission to return from Court along with her parents. 4. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The alleged detenue Reshma, an adult major woman, who has crossed the age of 18 years as admitted by all concerned, is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner, her father. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/