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 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 128 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEDEVI, ATED 45 YEARS, W/O.LATE BABU, KANNANKARA, KIZHAKKEPTHEN VEEDU,ALUMMOODU P.O., MAMPUZHA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNEMNT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (LAW & ORDER), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATEION, KOLLAM. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION,KOLLAM. 6. SAJIRA, D/O.SUBAIDA, PLAVILAPADINJATTETHIL, MAMPUZHA, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM. BY G.P. SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, ALONG WITH WPCR NO. 220 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) Nos. 128 & 220 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. These petitions have been filed by two women who are respectively mothers of two alleged detenues i.e., Sajira - the daughter of the petitioner in W.P.(Cri) No.220/10 and Sajan Babu - the son of the petitioner in W.P.(Cri) No.128/10. 2. The respective petitioners allege in their petitions that their daughter/son are detained by the son/daughter of the other petitioner. The petitioner - Sreedevi, alleges in W.P.(Cri) No.128/10 that her son - a person aged about 23 years, is being illegally detained by the 6th respondent - Sajira - a woman much elder to him who has already married and has two children. In the petition filed by Subaida, she alleges that her daughter Sajira is illegally detained and confined by Sajan Babu and his mother Sreedevi. 3. These petitions were filed on 5/4/10 (W.P.(Cri) W.P.(Cri) Nos. 128 & 220 of 2010-S -: 2 :- No.128/10) and 10/6/10 (W.P.(Cri) No.220/10). This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by us in these writ petitions. 4. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the alleged detenues are both present. The petitioner in W.P.(Cri) No.128/10 is present personally. The petitioner in W.P.(Cri) No.220/10 is not present. She is laid up, it is submitted. Both the petitioners are represented by their counsel. 5. We interacted with the alleged detenues - alone initially and together later. Both submit that they are not under any illegal detention or custody. Sajira, the alleged detenue in W.P.(Cri) No.220/10, states that she wants to go along with the 5th respondent therein i.e., Sajan Babu. Sajan Babu, the alleged detenu in W.P.(Cri) No.128/10, submits that he wants both his mother and the alleged detenue and that he cannot now leave the alleged detenue - Sajira. He wants to return from the Court along with the said Sajira. He states that he has the responsibility of giving his younger sister in marriage. After discharging that responsibility, he will think of getting married to Sajira, if such marriage can legally be performed. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(Cri) No.220/10 submits that the alleged detenue Sajira still remains W.P.(Cri) Nos. 128 & 220 of 2010-S -: 3 :- validly married and that her marriage has not been dissolved. Sajira makes assertions to the contrary. According to her, she has been divorced. 7. In these petitions filed for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenues are under illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that they are not. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that no further directions are necessary in these writ petitions. We take note of the agony of the petitioners in these writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P. (Cri) No.220/10 submits that her daughter - the alleged detenue, is legally married to another person and that she has two children in the wed-lock who have been left with the petitioner i.e., the grandmother of the minor children. The petitioner in W.P.(Cri) No.128/10 narrates her difficulties and agony as the alleged detenu Sajan Babu is the only person for the widowed petitioner to look-after her and her younger daughter. 8. We do not think it proper or necessary to sit in judgment over the morality, ethicality and propriety of the conduct resorted to by the alleged detenues. They are adult persons - both having crossed the age of 21 years. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary W.P.(Cri) Nos. 128 & 220 of 2010-S -: 4 :- in this matter we having satisfied ourselves from the statements given by the alleged detenues before us that they are not under any illegal confinement or detention and that they are now together as per their voluntary and personal decisions. 9. These writ petitions are, in these circumstances, dismissed. The alleged detenues are informed that they are at liberty and can choose to follow whatever course is, according to them, the best and proper for them. We are informed that both the alleged detenues were produced before the learned Magistrate earlier and that the learned Magistrate had left them free. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge