IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 266 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RONY GEORGE,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KALAMPARAMBIL, POOZHITHODU.P.O., PERUVANNAMUZHI,KOZHIKODE-673528 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. S.K.SHAKKEELA, W/O.LATE BABAVALI, DOOR NO.3/8/33,DUFFPETA, 5TH WARD PONNUR, GUNDUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,PIN-522124 2. RAKHIL, D/O.LATE BABAVALI, DOOR NO.3/8/33,DUFFPETA, 5TH WARD PONNUR, GUNDUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,PIN-522124 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL) KOZHIKODE 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUVANNAMOOZHI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Mrs.Asha Parveen, who, according to the petitioner, is illegally detained and confined by respondents 1 and 2, the mother and sister respectively of the alleged detenue. According to the petitioner, he was employed at Ponnuru in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh. There, both the petitioner and the alleged detenue were employed as teachers at St.Thomas Kerala English Medium school. They got acquainted with each other. The alleged detenue is a Muslim by religion. The petitioner is a Christian by religion. They fell in love and they decided to get married. The alleged detenue Mrs.Asha Parveen got converted into Christianity and got married in accordance with the customary Christian rights on 01/05/2010. Later, the petitioner and the alleged detenue came to the native place of the petitioner at Poozhithodu within the jurisdiction of W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 2 Peruvannamuzhy police station. The 1st respondent came to Kerala and it is the allegation of the petitioner that his wife, the alleged detenue was taken away forcibly by respondents 1 and 2 on 22/6/2010. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the alleged detenue was illegally taken away and is being detained and confined by respondents 1 and 2 at Ponnuru in Guntur district in Andhra Pradesh. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 06/07/2010. 2. This petition was not initially admitted by this Court. Later, by order dated 19/7/2010, this petition was admitted. A crime was later registered and the police party went to Andhra Pradesh. The case was posted to this date and today when the case was called, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. The 1st respondent is present along with the alleged detenue. Both the petitioner and the 1st respondent are represented by their counsel. 3. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the 1st respondent who allegedly is illegally detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the chamber with opportunity for noone to influence her. We permitted the petitioner, the husband of the alleged detenue, to interact with her as agreed by both of them. Later, we interacted with the alleged detenue and the petitioner. The W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 3 mother of the alleged detenue and Mr.Jany Basha, said to be a cousin of the alleged detenue, were also present in the course of the interactions. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 4. The alleged detenue stated before us that she is legally married to the petitioner. She accepts the marriage. But, she is not able now to continue residence along with the petitioner. She has to return to her native place. Her relatives are not in favour of the marriage between her and the petitioner. She has nothing against the petitioner. She hopes that she will be able to join him later. But, at the moment, she has to return along with the 1st respondent and continue with the 1st respondent. She has already secured Government employment in Andhra Pradesh and she wants to join Government service, at the earliest, that is as soon as the call comes. She states before us that she will try to later join the petitioner; but at the moment she is unable to stay back and live with the petitioner. In these circumstances, she prays that she may be permitted to leave the Court along with her mother, the 1st respondent and her cousin Mr.Jany Basha today itself. Two other persons have also come from Andhra Pradesh along with the alleged detenue, the 1st respondent and the said Jany Basha, submits the alleged W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 4 detenue. The alleged detenue further states that she is aware that having married the petitioner, she will not be able to marry any other person. She states that she has no intention to marry any other person when the marriage with the petitioner subsists. The 1st respondent, the mother of the alleged detenue, also states that she understands that the alleged detenue cannot marry any other person so long as the marriage with the petitioner subsists. 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 detention or confinement. In this case, we are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under the illegal confinement or detention of any person. We are satisfied that the crux of the problem is the inability of the relatives of the alleged detenue to accept the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. The petitioner and the alleged detenue will have to sort out their differences and either W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 5 agree to unite or agree to part honourably. At the moment, we are unable to persuade them either to unite or to put an end to their marital relationship. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that it is not necessary any longer to keep this writ petition pending. 6. In the result, a) This writ petition is dismissed. b) The alleged detenue Mrs.Asha Parveen is permitted to leave the Court along with the 1st respondent, her mother as desired by her. c) We make it clear that we have not intended to express any opinion on the disputes between the parties; but we take note of the acceptance of the marriage between the petitioner, and the alleged detenue as a fact by all concerned. d) We make it clear that the rights of the parties to take any appropriate steps in accordance with law for the resolution of the controversy regarding matrimony between the petitioner and the alleged detenue will not, in any way, be fettered by this judgment passed by us. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 6 W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 7 W.P.(Crl) No.266 of 2010 8 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 19/07/2010