IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 447 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BIBITHA BABY, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O BABY, NEDUMANNIL HOUSE, WEST PO MALLAPPALLY, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. CHANDRAN VADAKEPARAMBIL HOUSE MADHUMULLA PO, CHENGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. RAMESH, KARAKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGAM MURI THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl.) No.447 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner, a young woman, aged above 18 years (date of birth - 19.03.1990 as stated by her) has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Satheesh Chandran, a young man, aged above 22 years (date of birth - 16.05.1988). The petitioner as well as the alleged detenu were both employed in the Pushpagiri hospital. According to the petitioner, they had fallen in love and they decided to get married. It is her case that they have been living together for some days. They have decided to get their marriage solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The petitioner is a Christian by religion, whereas the alleged detenu is a Hindu. They had given notice under the Special Marriage Act to get their marriage solemnised and registered. That notice was given in April, 2010. According to the petitioner, subsequently the alleged detenu was missing. The petitioner apprehended that he was being detained by the 5th respondent, the father of the alleged detenue and Ramesh, W.P(Crl.) No.447 of 2010 2 the 6th respondent, another relative of the alleged detenu. According to the petitioner, the relatives of the alleged detenu did not approve of the intention of the petitioner and the alleged detenu to enter matrimony. It is hence that they were detaining and confining the alleged detenu. Complaints to the police did not produce any effective action and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 10.11.2010. 2. This petition was admitted on 11.11.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to 23.11.2010. 3. On 23.11.2010 when the case was called, the alleged detenu was not present. In these circumstances, peremptory directions were issued to the police to ensure the production of the alleged detenu today, ie. 24.11.2010. 4. Today when the case is called, the petitioner has come to Court. She is represented by her counsel. The 5th respondent, the father of the alleged detenu, has come to Court. He is represented by a counsel. Along with the 5th respondent, the alleged detenu has also come to Court. W.P(Crl.) No.447 of 2010 3 5. As the alleged detenu has come to Court along with the 5th respondent, who is allegedly detaining him, we permitted the alleged detenu to remain alone in the Chamber without any opportunity for the 5th respondent to interact with him. To a specific query by us, the alleged detenu stated that he does not want to interact with the petitioner. 6. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenu in the Chamber alone initially and later in the presence of his father, the 5th respondent. Subsequently we interacted with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 7. The alleged detenu stated before us that he is not under any illegal detention or confinement. He did not dispute the relationship with the petitioner earlier. He did not dispute the fact that notice was issued under the Special Marriage Act. However, he now takes the stand that such notice was given under coercion and compulsion. According to him, he is not now willing to get married to the petitioner. He does not want to have any relationship with the petitioner. He does not intend to get married to her. He prays that he may be permitted to leave W.P(Crl.) No.447 of 2010 4 the Court along with the 5th respondent. He does not want to go with the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has an unfortunate tale of woes to narrate. She laments that she has trusted the alleged detenu and the alleged detenu had promised to marry her. She has a further version that she had become pregnant on account of the physical relationship between her and the alleged detenu. The pregnancy got aborted. She laments that she will not have a life for herself if the alleged detenu would not stand by her. 9. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenu is under any illegal detention or confinement. The alleged detenu had stated categorically before us in the presence of the petitioner that he is not under any illegal detention or confinement. According to him, he does not want to continue the relation with the petitioner. 10. We are satisfied that the alleged detenu is not under any illegal confinement or detention. Notwithstanding our sympathy and concern for the plight of the petitioner, we are satisfied that no directions deserve to be issued invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are satisfied W.P(Crl.) No.447 of 2010 5 that this Writ Petition can and need only be dismissed now without prejudice to any other legal remedy/course open to the petitioner. 11. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. The alleged detenu Satheesh Chandran is permitted to leave the Court on his own along with the 5th respondent as desired by him. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/