IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 172 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMESH KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 25, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PIRIYANKODU OORUTTAMBALAM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, DO. DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, MARANALLOOR. 5. JUMAILA BEEVI, W/O.LATE KASIMKUNJU, BISMI MANZIL, KANYAKULANGARA P.O., VEMBAYAM. 6. MOHAMMED, S/O.LATE KASIMKUNJU OF DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 172 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 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 his wife Mubeena Beevi aged 22 years (date of birth 19/5/1988). According to her, the petitioner and the alleged detenue are adult individuals. They had decided to get married. They have entered into Ext.P1 agreement. They had lived together for a period of about 1 ½ years. But later she was being illegally detained and confined by her mother - the 5th respondent and her brother - the 6th respondent. 2. This petition was filed on 17/5/2010. The learned Government Pleader was directed to take instructions. On 21/5/10 it was directed that the alleged detenue must appear before this W.P.(Cri) No. 172 of 2010 -: 2 :- Court today. 3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. The 5th respondent has appeared before Court. One Advocate Mr.Althaf, who represented the 5th respondent before the lower court, has also come to Court along with the 5th respondent. 4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with the 5th respondent, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for any one to interact with her. After lunch recess at 1.45 p.m. we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially; later we interacted with her in the presence of the 5th respondent and subsequently with the petitioner herein. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Advocate Althaf were also present. 5. The alleged detenue, who stated before Court that she does not want to speak to the petitioner, told us after 1.45 p.m. that she wants to return along with the petitioner. She has some disagreement with the petitioner and we think it unnecessary to advert to such disagreement between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. However, the alleged detenue stated before us categorically that though she is not W.P.(Cri) No. 172 of 2010 -: 3 :- under any illegal detention or confinement by respondents 5 and 6, she now wants to return from Court along with the petitioner herein. All concerned accept that the petitioner and the alleged detenue were living as husband and wife though such relationship is founded only on Ext.P1 agreement. We note that there is no legal marriage. The statement of the alleged detenue in the Chamber in the presence of the petitioner and the 5th respondent and all counsel did really surprise us because that was not consistent with her earlier statement in open Court that she does not want to speak to the petitioner. To satisfy ourselves that the decision by her is voluntary and genuine, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone before finally conveying her response to us. It is thereafter that she asserted that she wants to leave along with the petitioner. 6. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are concerned only with the question whether the alleged detenue is illegally detained or confined. We are satisfied that she is not so detained or confined in this case. However, we take note of the submissions of the petitioner and the alleged detenue that they are husband and wife and that the alleged detenue wants to go from Court along with the petitioner. We take note of the submissions of the alleged detenue and the petitioner that they W.P.(Cri) No. 172 of 2010 -: 4 :- shall settle their disputes among themselves. We respect the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue - a woman who has crossed the age of 22 years. 7. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed in part. (b) The alleged detenue - Mubeena Beevi is permitted to leave this Court along with the petitioner as desired by her. We accept the submissions of the alleged detenue and the petitioner that they shall settle their disputes among themselves harmoniously. R. BASANT (Judge) M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/