IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 495 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PACHAN, AGED 71, S/O.ACHAPPAN, CHARUMKUZHI LAKSHAM VEEDU, AYIROOR DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE, NEAR VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VINEESH @ KOCHUNNI, S/O.APPU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHARUMKUZHI COLONY, AYIROOR VILLAGE, NEAR VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AJEESH, S/O.SATHYAN, KAYALPURAM KAITHAPPUZHA COLONY, AYIROOR VILLAGE, NEAR VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA LPOLICE STATION, MAIDHANAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.6. SATHYAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 48 YEARS, CHETTIYARTHODI VEEDU, THAZHAM VADAKKU, CHATHANOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) ADDL.R6 BY ADV.SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPCR.495/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.11.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(Crl).No.495 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is the maternal grand father of Rini who is present before us along with her father Sathyan who was impleaded as the additional 6th respondent. It appears that Sathyan and his wife live separately. Sathyan's wife, Rini's mother, is now a house-maid in Singapore. 2.The writ petition is filed seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on the allegation that Rini is illegally detained by the second respondent Ajeesh. The alleged detenue and Ajeesh were produced before the Magistrate's Court. The grand father could not take her with him. In fact, she was produced before the learned Magistrate during the pendency of this writ petition. In terms of the interim orders issued in this case, the alleged detenue accompanied by Ajeesh and his WP(Crl).495/09 2 parents states that they were married on 7.12.2009 under the auspicious of the Giri Varga Vedar Maha Sabha, Ayiroor Branch. Rini's father Sathyan, in the affidavit filed in support of the impleading petition, has averred that he was a witness to the marriage between Rini and Ajeesh, the second respondent and the he stood as witness and had endorsed to that effect in the marriage register. 3.It appears that there was some controversy as to whether Rini is a major. Materials do not tend to establish any specific date. However, as against the assertion of the maternal grandfather that she is only 17 years while this writ petition was filed on 25.11.2009, we are inclined to take the statement of Rini's father Sathyan in his affidavit that she is 18 years old. We also note that even according to the father, the alleged detenue Rini found it difficult to continue to reside in the home of her maternal grandfather, the petitioner, and had been staying with the second respondent from 14.11.2009, after undergoing marriage in Ayiravally Temple in Kollam. WP(Crl).495/09 3 4. In the aforesaid fact situation, we are inclined to take the view, on the basis of the affidavit of the additional 6th respondent, that the alleged detenue Rini was born on 2.11.1991 as stated by Sathyan in open court before us on being specifically asked in that regard and therefore, we declare that she was a major, having attained 18 years of age as on the date of her marriage, undergone ceremoniously in terms of the Hindu Rites, with the second respondent. We also take the statement of Sathyan that on the facts and circumstances of the case, he deemed it imperative that Rini continues with Ajeesh and would then be free of any kind of trouble. The parents of the second respondent are also present. All that remains, as of now, is that the marriage has to be duly registered in terms of the Common Rules. We are told that the registering authority has refused to issue registration on the ground that the marriage was conducted within the jurisdiction of yet another officer and also because certain objections were raised by the petitioner as to the age WP(Crl).495/09 4 of Rini. Overruling all such discrepancies, we hereby direct the competent registering authority under the Common Rules to register the marriage between the second respondent and Rini and issue certificate in accordance with law, after ensuring that necessary formalities in terms of those rules are carried out. The second respondent will make available a duly authenticated copy of that certificate, supported by affidavit, before the Registrar (General) of this Court within two months. Notwithstanding the fact that such registering authority is not a party to this writ petition, the competent registering authority will act, without fail, on the basis of this directions. It is clarified that Rini is at liberty to go with the second respondent in terms of what is aforesaid. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.1/03.