IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 330 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DEEPAK.S., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SINDHU KUMARI, 'SMRITHI', HOUSE NO.3, PSC NAGAR, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 031. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUESEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SURESH, T.C.64/439(1), ASRA 101C, NEAR ARAKATTU TEMPLE, KARUMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BEENA SURESH, W/O.SURESH, T.C.64/439(1), ASRA 101 C, NEAR ARAKATTU TEMPLE, KARUMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the matter resting with the order dated 30.08.2010. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are present. They are represented by their counsel. The alleged detenue has been brought to Court from the Santhi Niketan hostel. 3. We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner and the parents of the alleged detenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 4. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have today filed an affidavit where under they have prayed, and the said request is repeated before us by respondent Nos.4 and 5 personally and through W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 2 their learned counsel, that the alleged detenue may be sent along with respondent Nos.4 and 5 for a period of two months to enable respondent Nos.4 and 5 to properly advise, counsel and guide the alleged detenue. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 even now feel that the alleged detenue is not in a position to take an independent and proper decision. Their short prayer is that the alleged detenue may be sent along with them for a period of two months before her version is finally ascertained by the Court. 5. The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she does not want to return along with respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is the stand of the alleged detenue and the petitioner that they have already got married in accordance with the Hindu customary religious rites. According to them, the relevant document to show that their marriage was solemnised at Guruvayur - only a receipt to evidence payment of the Vivaha Vazhipadu, has been destroyed by the 4th respondent and therefore they have no better document to prove their marriage. The petitioner and the alleged detenue assert that they are married and that they want to live together. They state before us that if sufficient time is given, they shall get their marriage solemnised/registered in accordance with law and shall produce W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 3 before Court the necessary documents to confirm such solemnisation of marriage. 6. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submit that if the alleged detenue were to go with the petitioner and not return along them, they want an undertaking that the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall not ever make any demand for property or otherwise from respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 air an apprehension that the petitioner, who is involved in several criminal cases, may use the name of respondent Nos.4 and 5 (respondent No.5 is a Head Clerk in the District Police Office, Alappuzha) to extricate himself from the cases that have been registered against him. The petitioner and the alleged detenue state categorically before us that they shall not ever make any demand for property or otherwise from respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is further assured and undertaken that the petitioner shall not in any way make use of the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to claim any advantage in the cases that are pending against the petitioner. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 assert that if the alleged detenue chooses to go with the petitioner, there should not be any further relationship between the alleged detenue and respondent Nos.4 and 5. The alleged W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 4 detenue states that if invited she would go to the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and if not invited, she and the petitioner will not go to the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 7. We take pity on the plight of respondent Nos.4 and 5. They stated before us that the alleged detenue can take a decision on her own after she attains the age of 21 years on 23.03.2011. They want the alleged detenue to continue her studies and complete her B.Com. course. They want the alleged detenue to consider, think and take an informed and matured decision and convey the same to the Court after she attains the age of 21 years on 23.03.2011. Till then, the alleged detenue may be permitted to consider, contemplate and think of all implications of her decision. We find the said request to be reasonable. We attempted to persuade the alleged detenue to consider and accept the same. But we are sorry to note that the alleged detenue does not accept the same and does adamantly assert that she want to return along with the petitioner today itself. The alleged detenue and the petitioner do not accept even the suggestion that the alleged detenue may continue to be accommodated at the Santhi Niketan hostel for a further period W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 5 of 10 days to enable her to take an informed decision after sufficient forethought. 8. We take note of the fact that the alleged detenue is a woman aged above 20 years. We take note of the circumstance that she is an educated woman, she being a 3rd year B.Com. student now. We take note of the submission of the alleged detenue and the petitioner that the alleged detenue shall complete her B.Com. course and shall not discontinue her studies. We cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the decisions of parties in a proceedings like the instant one. The alleged detenue, aged above 20 years, is competent to take a decision affecting her future. Whatever her parents may think and this Court may feel, her decisional autonomy will have to be respected and we are satisfied, in the wake of the adamant refusal of the alleged detenue to accept the various courses suggested by her parents-respondent Nos.4 and 5, that her decision can be accepted and recognised by this Court and she can be permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner. The alleged detenue and the petitioner undertake to get their marriage solemnised/registered in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and produce the marriage W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 6 certificate at the earliest. They pray that respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are in possession of the relevant documents, may be permitted to hand over the documents to them to enable them to get their marriage registered at the earliest. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not willing to co-operate and they assert that they have no documents of the alleged detenue available with them now. We are satisfied that it will only be just and fair to insist that the alleged detenue and the petitioner must produce before us certificate to prove solemnisation/registration of their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. 9. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The alleged detenue Lakshmi, aged 20 years (date of birth - 23.03.1990) is permitted to leave the Court today along with the petitioner as desired by her; c) We accept the undertaking of the petitioner and the alleged detenue to produce certificate showing solemnisation/registration of their marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act on or before 11.10.2010. W.P(Crl.) No.330 of 2010 7 10. Call this petition again for production of the original of the marriage certificate along with a copy thereof to be furnished to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 11.10.2010. 11. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/