IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 459 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: RAJESH .K., S/O.KUMAR, 42, MASTHAN PALLI STREET, KARAIKAL, PONDICHARRY NOW RESIDNG AT T.C.51536/3, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST-695101 3. SUDARSAN P.G., NIRMALYAM, 18TH MILE, KORANI P.O.,ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695101. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPCR 459/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE DATE OF BIRTH OF THE DETENUE /TRUE COPY/ Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.459 of 2011 S -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Habeaus Corpus in relation to Saranya.S.S., whose Secondary School Leaving Certificate is Exhibit P1. The third respondent is her father. Following the earlier orders, Saranya is present in court. She has come with her father. In the morning, we minuted an order after interacting with her, her father, the petitioner and also Thirumathi R. Adhilakshmi, who stated that she knows the petitioner and had afforded protection and support for his evolution and growth with motherly care after he has lost his parents. We wanted the petitioner to place better particulars regarding his identity, educational qualifications, etc. because the third respondent then pointed out to us WPCR 459/2011 2 that he has no means of ascertaining the identity of the petitioner appropriately and he does not approve any relationship between the petitioner and Saranya. We also required Thirumathi Adhilakshmi to file an affidavit. We have those materials before us. 2. The life sketch of the petitioner appears to be that he was born on 20.02.1987 within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The competent authority under the Karaikal Municipality has issued Exhibit P18 Birth Certificate. His father is Kumaran and his mother Thamizharasi. Materials show that he was admitted later to Jawahar Novodaya Vidyalaya, Karaikkal and passed the Secondary School Examination, 2002. He had participated in Bharat Scouts & Guides activities and has been certified with merit of having participated in Kabadi competitions in the School. Thereafter, he was with the Karaikal Polytechnic College, from where he obtained Diploma in Computer Engineering in first class. He also obtained B.Tech. in Computer Science WPCR 459/2011 3 and Engineering from Pondicherry University having studied in Pondicherry Engineering College. He told us that he was admitted in the merit quota seat in that Institution. On the basis of his such qualification, he is now employed in SCS – Swamy Cyber Solutions Private Limited in Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. He is the holder of Indian Passport No.H4549712 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai. That also shows that petitioner is an Indian citizen and his place of birth is Karaikal, Pondicherry. He says that he is employed as a Software Engineer and has the means to maintain himself and a family. We noted his above evolution from birth to satisfy ourselves of his credibility in the wake of third respondent stating that petitioner's identity and other relevant materials cannot be appropriately noticed for considering him as an eligible bachelor to whom Saranya could be given in marriage. 3. One of the most remarkable things that we have noticed through the materials on record and the affidavit of WPCR 459/2011 4 the aforesaid Thirumathi Adhilakshmi, who is a school teacher, is that the petitioner unfortunately lost his parents even while in school, but had thereafter come up with the support of the society. Petitioner told us that Thirumathi Adhilakshmi had helped him to come up. We heard the petitioner and Thirumathi Adhilakshmi in person. We also have her identity on record. We have also examined her identity card which shows that she is an S.G. Teacher in Government Primary School, Karaikal. She has been issued with an identity card to that effect by the Chief Educational Officer, Karaikal. For the purpose of clarity, we record that having interacted with Smt.Adhilakshmi in person, we are satisfied that she is the holder of the Identity Card referred to above. It carries her address as 54, PLAZ-East Street, Karaikal. She has told us that, that was a house which was rented out at the time when the identity card was issued and that her present address is the one shown in her affidavit, that is to say, 19, Mukil Illam, Rainbow Nagar, Karaikal, WPCR 459/2011 5 Pondicherry Union Territory. 4. Going by what the petitioner and Thirumathi Adhilakshmi told us, the petitioner, while he was in the VI standard, was close to Adhilakshmi's son who was then in the VIII standard. After the petitioner lost his parents, he found solace and support in his friend and his two brothers and also obtained motherly love and care from Smt.Adhilakshmi. We also noticed the manner in which the petitioner and Adhilakshmi interacted even within the court and noticed that the statements are only worthy of acceptance. 5. We interacted with Saranya. She obtained Diploma in Computer Science from Government Polytechnic, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram and is now working with an establishment in Technopark by name NeST. We put different questions to her and noticed that she is not only well oriented but she is also capable of, and has taken decisions affecting her life after weighing all relevant WPCR 459/2011 6 aspects. We do not find that she is in any manner now going to be dissuaded from her desire to live with the petitioner and lead a married life with him. 6. The materials and affidavit tend to disclose that petitioner, domiciled by birth in Pondicherry, is stated to be one belonging to Hindu Pillai community while Saranya is one belonging to Hindu Ezhava community. We say this because we thought that little cleavages in thoughts based on such distinctions of caste, creed and colour would melt down at least by the time we took up the case at 3 p.m. after the interactions in the morning. Since we are in the land of the revered social reformer Sree Narayana Guru who spoke specifically on issues which unfortunately have not been appropriately recognised by the Indian community. 7. When we interacted with the third respondent, the father of Saranya in the afternoon session, he candidly told that his daughter appears to be adamant to marry the petitioner and he feels that he and his wife have also been WPCR 459/2011 7 harassed by the daughter in an attempt to get them to yield to Saranya's desire to marry the petitioner. He said that he and his relatives would not support the alliance and they would not be party to the marriage. He candidly said that he does not care even if his daughter goes along with the petitioner from the court. He sounded that he has wasted the day away from his bakery business and may not be required to come to court henceforth. 8. Parting with a parent may be painful for a child, however grown up. But it sometimes becomes inevitable when it becomes necessary on priorities, desires and rights. 9. We therefore bestowed anxious consideration as to how Saranya would manage herself until her marriage with the petitioner takes place. Since some doubts have been raised about the identity of the petitioner, on facts, we think, it would be only safer in the long run that Saranya and the petitioner, if they are to get married, would do so in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. WPCR 459/2011 8 They agree to this course. 10. In the midst of this, we are told by Saranya that human resources personnel of her employer warned her that unless she joins duty, she may lose her job. She says that parents were not permitting her to go for job for the last about a month. We are sure that having regard to the growth in the city of Thiruvananthapuram, she will be able to find safe place for residence either in a hostel or as a paying guest. This may take some time. 11. However, we are confident that Saranya is a free person and is entitled to take the route of her choice from now. As at present, we also record that we are of the view that Thirumathi R.Adhilakshmi, who has filed affidavit, can provide support and company to Saranya till the marriage between Saraynya and the petitioner is appropriately solemnized and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Therefore, holding that as of how, the alleged detenue Saranya has been released from WPCR 459/2011 9 any detention if at all, she is at liberty to go with Thirumathi R.Adhilakshmi and find a place of residence for herself in Thiruvananthapuram. Thirumathi Adhilakshmi will continue to afford such assistance as may be required for the couple in furtherance of their desire to marry. 12. Since, now Saranya has decided to go with the petitioner as aforesaid, the parents of the petitioner, including the third respondent, will ensure that all necessary certificates and other documents, if any, regarding Saranya, which may be with them, are made available to her appropriately, if necessary through Advocate Sri.D.Koshore, who appears for the petitioner in this case. Ordered accordingly. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (C.T.Ravikumar, Judge) tkv