IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 107 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.RAMAN,THAZHATHEPURAKKAL HOUSE,P.O.VARODE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION,P.O.OTTAPALAM-679101. 3. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. SUJESH,AGED AROUND 22 YEARS,S/O.AYYAPPAN KARIYAMUTTY HOUSE,P.O.TRIKATIRI-679502,OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. AYYAPPAN,AGED AROUND 58 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,KARIYAMUTTY HOUSE, P.O.TRIKKATIRI-679 502,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. RAMESH,AGED AROUND 30 YEARS,S/O CHAMI, KARIYAMUTTI HOUSE,P.O.TRIKKATIRI-679502,OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(CRL) NO.107/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DETENUE NAMED SRUTHI P2:- COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DTD. 14.2.1994 OF THE DETENUE SRUTHI. P3:- COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME 130/2011, POLICE STATION, OTTAPALAM. ANNEXURE R5 A:- SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF SRUTHI. ANNEZXURE R5 B:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM MOLIYUR SRI.MAHADEVAR TEMPLE DTD. 28.2.2011. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.107 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July 2011 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Following the earlier orders, the alleged detenue is before us. She was staying in the Shantinikethan hostel. Initially, she was sent along with her mother. However, the petitioner/father of the alleged detenue reported to the court that the parents are unable to keep the daughter with them having regard to her attitude which appears to be adverse to the parents. 2. With the passage of time, when we spoke to the alleged detenue today in court, we found that she has firm ideas and clear thinking and also that she is capable of deciding matters for herself. She said that after passing Plus Two course, she is undergoing some other education programme and that she had a love affair with the 4th respondent who is the son of the fifth respondent and that she had voluntarily left her parental W.P.(Crl) No.107/2011 2 home and went to co-habit with the 4th respondent. She said that she and the 4th respondent underwent a ceremonial marriage in a temple. She vouchsafes the fact stated by the 5th respondent, the father of the 4th respondent, in his counter affidavit. She also stands to assert that what is produced as Ext.R5(a) is her school leaving certificate and it reflects her true date of birth in contra distinction to what is contained in Ext.P2. Ext.P1 has the support of the provisions contained in Chapter VI of the Kerala Educational Rules. 3. The writ petitioner, who is the father of the alleged detenue, points out certain municipal records showing that the alleged detenue has not attained the age of 18 years. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the local authority regarding entries in the register of births and deaths. It shows the name of the father as Sundaram though the petitioner's name is Unnikrishnan. This is also explained by the petitioner in the writ petition showing that he is locally known among his friends as Sundaram. W.P.(Crl) No.107/2011 3 4. Be that as it may, we are inclined to think that priority as of now has to be given to the records which have the statutory backing of the K.E.R having regard to the provisions in Chapter VI of the K.E.R that those entries shall not be altered except following the due procedure prescribed in that Chapter. 5. Not only that, in our considered view, much really does not turn on the question whether the alleged detenue has attained the age of 18 years. We have spoken to her. We have observed her demeanour. We are satisfied that she is acting on her own free will and is not under any compulsion, persuasion or coercion. We are satisfied that she is not under illegal detention. We are not inclined to accept the suggestion that there can be any illegality in the co-habitation of the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent. Undisputedly, the alleged detenue is above 16 years of age. She stands to say that she has undergone a formal marriage. We are not concerned in this proceedings about illegality or otherwise of that marriage. All that we need to be assured of is that she is not under illegal detention. Being so satisfied, we do not find any ground to issue any order in favour W.P.(Crl) No.107/2011 4 of the petitioner. 6. In the result and in view of the above, the writ petition is closed. The alleged detenue has appeared and she has, of her own free will, expressed that she would go with the 4th respondent and would be aided and taken care of by the 5th respondent and the siblings of the 4th respondent. We record this. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge