IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY, 2008 / 10TH MAGHA, 1929 WP(Crl.).No. 18 of 2008(S) PETITIONER: ---------------- H. RAHIM, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. HANEEFA, 'PLAVILA VEEDU', NEDUMANKAVU, KUZHIMATHIKKADU P.O., KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SYAM @ SHINKAR, AGED ABOUT 26, S/O. SEEMA BABU, VILAYIL VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, PERAYAM, UMAYANELLOOR, KOLLAM. 5. SEEMA BABU, VILAYIL VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, PERAYAM, UMAYANELLOOR, KOLLAM. WP(CRL) NO.18 OF 2008 :-2-: 6. BABY, W/O. SEEMA BABU, VILAYIL VEEDU, THAZHUTHALA, PERAYAM, UMAYANELLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.SMITHA DIVAKARAN SRI.SREEVALSAN.V BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WP(Crl) No. 18 OF 2008) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: Copy of the S.S.S.L.C. Of petitioner's daughter Reena. Ext.P2: Copy of the FIR in Crime No.11/2008 of Ezhukone Police Station. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Ext.R4(a): Copy of the marriage certificate issued under Special Marriage Act. Ext.R4(b): Copy of the Birth and Death Register of the wife of the 4 th respondent. -True Copy- P.A.to Judge. P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN,JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(Crl.) N0.18 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 30th January, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman,J. Petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue by name Reena Mol who is stated to be a minor aged 17 years. It is further alleged that she has been illegally detained in some unknown place by the 4th respondent with the aid of respondents 5 and 6 who are his parents. It is also alleged that the petitioner's sole daughter Reena Mol was an ITC student at Kottiyam and all on a sudden she disappeared from the evening of 7th January, 2008. In proof of the age of the alleged detenue, Ext.P1 true copy of the S.S.L.C. certificate is produced. Pursuant to notice, the parties appeared. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 5 and 6 wherein it is averred that they have no information or knowledge of the whereabouts of the alleged detenue, the daughter of the petitioner. But it is admitted that the 4th WPCR 18/08 2 respondent who is the son of respondents 5 and 6 was in love with the daughter of the petitioner. But they did not know about this affair but was known to the Petitioner and his family. The respondents came to know about this only when the Petitioner came to the house of respondents 5 and 6 on 8-1-2008. It is also stated that the whereabouts of the Petitioner also not known. The 4th respondent in the counter affidavit filed has stated that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Reena Mol and the 4th respondent were in love for the last 3 years and the alleged detenue demanded the 4th respondent to marry her immediately as her parents decided to conduct her marriage with another person. Thereafter, 4th respondent married her on 7-1- 2008. Even prior to the said marriage, notice for the marriage was given as per Special Marriage Act and a marriage certificate issued under special Marriage Act by a competent marriage officer is produced as Ext.R4(a). It is also denied that the petitioner's daughter is a minor. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner's daughter attained majority on 17-10-2007 and Ext.R4(b) is WPCR 18/08 3 produced in evidence of the same. 3. We have interacted with the alleged detenue. It is stated that she is a major and the date of birth in the school register is entered wrongly. She also submitted that she married the 4th respondent as per the Special Marriage Act and that she is not under illegal custody. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Counsel Sri Venugopalan Nair appearing for the Petitioner submits that there is doubt regarding the correctness of the certificate produced by the 4th respondent, as according to him, the school certificate would show that she is only a minor. We are not deciding the age of the alleged detenue in this proceedings in the absence of further materials on record. However, as per the Special Marriage Act, marriage of the petitioner's daughter with the 4th respondent has taken place. That at least should satisfy us prima facie regarding the existence of the marriage. If the petitioner has got a case that the marriage is invalid for any reason, then he can challenge the same in appropriate forum in accordance with law. Prima facie, WPCR 18/08 4 the petitioner's daughter married the 4th respondent, hence we cannot now find that the petitioner's daughter is under illegal custody. Hence, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the parties to seek any other remedy in accordance with law. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/- WPCR 18/08 5 V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: