IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 226 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TINTUMON.K.M,S/O.MANI,KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM.PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN:683574. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.G.SANKARAN,PUSHPAKATH HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERI,THOTTUMUGHOM.P.O,ALUVA, PIN:683105. 2. DEVI SANKARAN,W/O.SANKARAN, -DO- 3. UMESH NEELAKANDAN,DCSMAT BUSINESS SCHOOL PULLIKKANAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN:685503. 4. SREEDEVI.A,D/O.A.G.SANKARAN,NOW AT AREEKARA PATTATH HOUSE,AVANOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,ALUVA POLICE STATION,ALUVA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ALUVA RURAL ALUVA. BY G.P. SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 226 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search, trace and produce respondent No.4 – his wife, who, according to him, is under illegal confinement and detention by respondents 1 to 3 – parents and brother-in-law of the 4th respondent. 2. The petitioner asserts that the 4th respondent is an adult woman aged above 23 years she having been born on 27/9/1985. It is his case that he was in love with the girl and that they had decided to get married. He has a further contention that they had entered into legal and valid matrimony under the Special Marriage Act. Their marriage has been solemnised and registered under the Special W.P.(Cri) No. 226 of 2009-S -: 2 :- Marriage Act under Ext.P1 – copy of the marriage certificate. According to him, she was being illegally detained and confined by respondents 1 to 3 who do not approve of his relationship with the 4th respondent. He has a further grievance that the 4th respondent has been compelled and coerced to initiate proceedings before the Family Court to secure a declaration that there is no legal marriage between them. 3. This writ petition was admitted on 8/6/09. Notice was ordered to the respondents. 4. Today, respondents 1 to 4 have appeared before this Court. In view of the apprehension expressed that free will of the 4th respondent may be influenced and coloured by respondents 1 to 3, we did not ascertain the response of the 4th respondent in open court. She was asked to be left alone in the Chambers while we were sitting in court. No one was permitted to contact her during the pre-lunch session and at 1.45 p.m. we interacted with the 4th respondent and asserted her response. The 4th respondent has categorically stated that she is not under illegal detention or confinement by any one. To our questions, she asserted that proceeding before the Family Court has also been initiated by her on her own free will and desire without being influenced by any one. It is her version that she did not W.P.(Cri) No. 226 of 2009-S -: 3 :- understand the importance or the import of the document in which her signature was obtained. She did not, of course, deny the fact that the petitioner was her class mate and there was friendly relationship between them. 5. The learned counsel for the parties as also the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 were called to the Chambers and we tried to interact with them. We attempted to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement of the dispute. The 4th respondent in the presence of the petitioner asserted again that she does not want to have any relationship with the petitioner. 6. Our attempt to persuade the parties to come to a settlement has not borne fruit. We are not, in this writ petition, concerned about the validity or otherwise of the alleged marriage between the parties. We are informed that the parties are already before the Family Court in connection with that dispute. 7. Be that as it may, we are satisfied and there is no semblance of doubt in our mind on that aspect - that the 4th respondent is not under confinement or detention by any one. She is a free bird. Her decision not to have any interaction with the petitioner, we are satisfied, has been taken by her on her own. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that no further W.P.(Cri) No. 226 of 2009-S -: 4 :- directions are necessary in this writ petition. 8. In response to a specific query by us, the 4th respondent states that she wants to leave the court along with respondents 1 to 3. We respect her wishes. 9. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The 4th respondent is permitted to leave the court along with respondents 1 to 3 as desired by her. 10. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner is harassing and vexing respondents 1 to 4 by his conduct and deeds. Those allegations are stoutly denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the petitioner does have any grievance on this aspect, it will be open to him to approach the appropriate forum and seek directions. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. Hari Rani (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No. 226 of 2009-S -: 5 :-