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 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 485 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AHAMMAD DILSHAD, S/O. KUNHALI HAJI, MEETHALMANGAD, BARA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S.P.OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 3. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. 4. MOHAMMED ALI.P.K. HASEENA, PALOAKUNNU, PO, BEKAL,UDMA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No.485 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 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 Ms.Ramzeena - a girl with whom he allegedly is in love, who he has allegedly married and who, according to him, is under the illegal detention of the 4th respondent - her father. According to the petitioner, he and Ramzeena had eloped and they had later got married. Subsequently, the alleged detenue Ramzeena was taken away to her parents and is under detention with the parents now. He prayed that she may be directed to be brought before Court and set at liberty. 2. This writ petition was filed on 19/11/09. It was admitted on the same day and notice was ordered to the W.P.(Cri) No.485 of 2009 -: 2 :- respondents. The case was posted to this date. 3. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. The 4th respondent is a disabled person. He is hence unable to come to Court, it is reported. But the wife of the 4th respondent (Mrs.Subaida) i..e, the mother of the alleged detenue has come to Court. She has brought to the Court the alleged detenue. 4. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of her parents, we wanted her to remain alone without opportunity for any one to influence her. We permitted her to remain alone in the Chamber. After about three hours - after the lunch recess, we interacted with her. Ms. Ramzeena tells us that she has completed 15 years. According to her, it is true that she had gone with the petitioner accepting his suggestion that they can get married. But, according to her, no such marriage has taken place at all. According to her, when she went along with the petitioner, he had stated that he has not married earlier. She has now realised that he has two wives and three children in the first marriage and one child in the second marriage. She has now realised that the petitioner is not a worthy person to live with. In these circumstances, she does not want to go with the petitioner. According to her, no legal marriage has taken place W.P.(Cri) No.485 of 2009 -: 3 :- between her and the petitioner. To a specific query by us, she stated that she may be permitted to return from Court along with her mother with whom she has come to Court today. 5. We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her mother and subsequently in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader were present. The alleged detenue and her mother are not represented by any counsel. 6. The petitioner concedes that he has married twice earlier and that he has children in those wed-locks. But, according to him, he has only one child each in such earlier marriages. He claims to have terminated those earlier marriages. According to him, he has married the alleged detenue. No documents whatsoever are produced to prove such marriage. According to him, he feels that the alleged detenue is under illegal custody and detention of her parents. 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that a crime has been registered as Crime No.406/09 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod. The same has been registered under Sec.376 IPC on 11/11/09 Investigation into that crime is pending. The alleged detenue has not completed the age of 16 years. As per W.P.(Cri) No.485 of 2009 -: 4 :- the birth certificate which has been procured by the prosecution she was born only on 14/8/94. According to the learned Government Pleader, the minor child could not have entered any valid marriage in the light of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act - she having not completed the age of 18 years. 8. In our interactions with the parties, we are satisfied that whatever be the past history, the alleged detenue is now not willing to go with the petitioner. We are further convinced that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied that it is her voluntary and genuine desire that she must be permitted to continue to reside with her parents. We further take note of the fact that as per the assertions of the alleged detenue and her mother as also from the copy of the certificate of birth issued by the Secretary of the Uduma Grama Panchayat which is available in the Case Diary placed before us for our perusal by the learned Government Pleader, the alleged detenue was born on 14/8/94 and her birth was registered on 24/8/94. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a correction in the last digit `1994' - the year of birth in the certificate. We are unable to find any significance of such alleged correction. We find no correction. Only the digit `4' in W.P.(Cri) No.485 of 2009 -: 5 :- 1994 is seen written in a slightly different ink. 10. Be that as it may, we are not really concerned with all such details in a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The short crucial question that survives for our consideration is whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied from the statement made before us by the alleged detenue that she is not under the illegal detention or confinement of any person and that she has chosen to reside along with her parents now on account of her voluntary and genuine desire and decision. We confirm that she is not under any illegal detention. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The alleged detenue Ms.Ramzeena is permitted to leave this Court along with her mother Mrs.Subaida with whom she has come to Court. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No.485 of 2009 -: 6 :-