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 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 469 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- NIMY PAUL, D/O.M.V.POULOSE, AGED 23 YEARS, MENACHERRY HOUSE, JOSPURAM, ANGAMALY-683 572, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. K.C.GEORGE, NEDIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P.O., PANNIKUZHI MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND FOR R3 SMT.M.P.MARY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(Crl.) No.469 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier order dated 20.11.2009. The petitioner, a young woman, aged 23 years, has come to this Court with a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Mr.Jitheesh C.George, who she claims is her legally wedded husband. He is a person aged 27 years and a Physiotherapist by profession. She apprehended that his father, the 3rd respondent, who does not seem to approve of the relationship between her and the alleged detenue Jitheesh, is illegally confining and detaining the said alleged detenue Jitheesh. 2. The parties had come before this Court on the last date of posting, ie. 20.11.09. They wanted time to consider the suggestions and proposals exchanged and to convey their response to the Court today. It is accordingly that the case has been posted to this date. W.P(Crl.) No.469 of 2009 2 3. Today when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner and her parents are present. Her counsel has also appeared before Court. The 3rd respondent is present along with his wife Mrs.Annamma George. He is represented by a counsel. The alleged detenu Jitheesh C.George is also present. We interacted with the parties separately and jointly. Counsel for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as also the learned Government Pleader are present. We interacted with them in the Chamber after lunch recess. 4. Today the alleged detenu states that he and the petitioner have settled all their disputes and it is agreed that by 20.02.2010, they shall get married and report that fact to the Court. The parents of the petitioner wanted some assurance for compliance with this offer/undertaking. Accordingly the alleged detenu agreed to file an affidavit of undertaking incorporating the offer/agreement made by him. Accordingly such an affidavit of undertaking has been filed by the alleged detenu Jitheesh C.George. 5. The petitioner and her parents accept such affidavit of undertaking and submit that the case may be posted to a date W.P(Crl.) No.469 of 2009 3 after 20.02.2010 to enable the parties to report compliance with the affidavit of undertaking. They pray that such a further opportunity may be granted to them. The alleged detenu Jitheesh C.George also makes the very same request. 6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he appears only for the 3rd respondent and does not appear for the alleged detenu. The 3rd respondent and his wife submitted initially that they are willing to accept the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenu. But they insisted that the marriage will have to wait until the alleged detenu secures suitable employment. They were not able to specify the period. When the alleged detenu conveyed that the marriage can be performed within a period of 3 months, the 3rd respondent submitted that if that is the case he does not want to be party to any such arrangement. He said that if the alleged detenu, who is an adult major person, wants to undertake such a responsibility, he can undertake such responsibility. But the 3rd respondent and his wife shall not be parties to such undertaking. They shall not be responsible for compliance with such undertaking, submits the 3rd respondent and his wife. The counsel for the 3rd respondent W.P(Crl.) No.469 of 2009 4 on behalf of the 3rd respondent asserts the same. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that he is, in these circumstances, not in a position to help the alleged detenu. For him he does not appear. To prepare an affidavit, the learned Government Pleader offered assistance to the alleged detenu to prepare an affidavit. It is accordingly that the affidavit has been filed. 7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, the Court is primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenu is under any illegal confinement or detention. We are now satisfied that the alleged detenu is not under any such illegal confinement or detention. The 3rd respondent and his wife assert that in the light of the stand taken by the alleged detenu, the alleged detenu shall have no place in their house hereafter. The alleged detenu submits that he shall find alternative accommodation. He is an adult major man and we are satisfied that we need only observe that he is at liberty to pursue whatever course he thinks is suitable to him. 8. We do, in these circumstances, dismiss this Writ Petition. We make it clear that the alleged detenu shall be at W.P(Crl.) No.469 of 2009 5 liberty to pursue whatever course he finds is suitable to him. We accept his affidavit of undertaking. We accept the request of the alleged detenu, the petitioner and her parents to post the case to a date after 20.02.2010 to report compliance with the affidavit of undertaking. We indulgently accept the said request. We post the case to 27.02.2010 to enable the alleged detenu and the petitioner to make further submissions if any and the report regarding compliance of the affidavit of undertaking. 9. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent may not be compelled to appear before Court hereafter. The said request is accepted. Presence of the 3rd respondent shall not be necessary on 27.02.2010. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-