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 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 449 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- SHEBIN ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, RESIDING AT THACHARUKUDI HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683 547, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.JEFF JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S: --------------- 1. RASHEED, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEERANPARAMBIL KARIMBA P.O., VETTINAD, KUTTANAD, PALAKAD DISTRIC,T PIN-678 597. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 303. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRITHALA POLICE STATION, THRITHALA-679 534, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R-1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl) No.449 of 2011-S ***************************** Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of our order dated 14.10.2011. Today when the case is called, the alleged detenue has come to Court along with the 1st respondent. The petitioner is also present. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are represented by their respective counsel. The 1st respondent has come to Court without his wife. He states that his wife is ill and that is why she has not been able to come. The petitioner has come to Court along with his brother Safeer and his maternal uncle Razack. Wife of Sri.Razack is also present. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's parents have not been able to come today as they are now abroad. The learned Government Pleader is also present. 2. The 1st respondent states categorically that there is no agreement and that he is unable to accept the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. In this life he will not give the alleged detenue in marriage to the petitioner, he asserts. The alleged detenue states before us today that she W.P(Crl) No.449 of 2011-S 2 does not want to return with the 1st respondent and that she wants to go with the petitioner. The petitioner and the alleged detenue are in love and they want to get married. Both of them agree that the alleged detenue shall continue her education in her present college, ie. Royal Dental College, Chalissery. She states that her books, laptop etc. are available with the 1st respondent. It is prayed by her that the said materials to continue her education may be returned to her. The 1st respondent states that he is not willing to return/hand over such articles to the alleged detenue. 3. The uncle of the petitioner, his wife and his brother state that they are willing to take the alleged detenue along with them today and that they shall look after the alleged detenue properly if she is sent along with them. The petitioner and the alleged detenue state before us that they shall get their marriage solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act at the earliest. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that all requisite arrangements have been made and notice under the Special Marriage Act shall be issued tomorrow itself, if so permitted by the Court. 4. The alleged detenue, the petitioner, petitioner's brother, petitioner's uncle and his wife agree that cohabitation of W.P(Crl) No.449 of 2011-S 3 the petitioner and the alleged detenue as spouses shall take place only after their marriage is solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 5. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal confinement or detention. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she does not want to make any complaint against the 1st respondent, but unmistakably states that she wants to go along with the petitioner. 6. The alleged detenue is an adult major woman, aged 22 years (date of birth – 05.05.1989). She is an educated woman. She is now attending her final year B.D.S Course. We are satisfied that her decisional autonomy has to be respected. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue can now be permitted to leave the Court in accordance with her desire. 7. It is true that this Court had made every possible endeavour to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement. We note that both counsel have also helped the Court to bring about a harmonious settlement. The 1st respondent has his own reasons and he is unable to accept the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue now W.P(Crl) No.449 of 2011-S 4 or later. Though the alleged detenue and the petitioner appear to be inclined to accept that they can wait for some further period of time, the 1st respondent's reluctance to accept the relationship has made any harmonious settlement not possible. 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The alleged detenue Farisa Rasheed is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner as desired by her; c) We accept the submission of the petitioner and the alleged detenue that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall take place in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act as expeditiously as possible and that they shall appear before Court and produce before Court certificate to confirm such solemnisation/registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act; d) We also take note of and record the statement of Razack, the maternal uncle of the petitioner, his wife Rafia and the petitioner's brother Safeer that the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall be permitted to cohabit as husband and wife only after their marriage is solemnised and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act; W.P(Crl) No.449 of 2011-S 5 e) The passport of the alleged detenue, which was produced before Court last date of posting and which is retained in safe custody, is hereby returned to the alleged detenue, the holder of the passport. 9. The matter shall be called again before this Court on 30.11.2011, on which day we want the petitioner and the alleged detenue to appear before this Court along with certificate of marriage and a copy thereof for being furnished to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 10. We record that though request is made by the alleged detenue and the learned counsel for the petitioner for return of at least S.S.L.C book of the alleged detenue, the 1st respondent asserts that she will not get anything from him hereafter. Parties shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for enforcement of their rights if any. 11. We direct the learned Government Pleader to ensure that respondents 2 and 3 afford adequate and sufficient police protection for the petitioner and the alleged detenue against any illegal, contumacious and culpable acts that may be directed against them by the 1st respondent or persons acting on his behalf. 12. If the petitioner, the 1st respondent or the alleged W.P(Crl) No.449 of 2011-S 6 detenue have any such complaints, they shall be at liberty to make such complaints to respondents 2 and 3, whereupon they shall take necessary action. 13. Hand over copies of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for both sides. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/