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 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 496 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- ANOOP B.M ,S/O. N.BABU, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C. 24/71, POUNDUKULAM, THYCAUD (PO) TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. UTHAMAN, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT UMESH BHAVAN, PONGA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1 AND R2 ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.496 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 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 Sumimol, a young woman aged above 20 years, allegedly born on 30.5.1989 with whom the petitioner claims to be in love and who the petitioner apprehended was under the illegal detention and confinement of her father, the 3rd respondent. 2. This petition was filed on 25.11.2009. It was admitted on 26.11.2009. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. The alleged detenue is present. She has come to Court along with the 3rd respondent and another young man by name Rajesh. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the 3rd respondent, we wanted to give her sufficient time to be left alone so that she could think, contemplate and decide on the response to be made to the Court. Accordingly, she was permitted to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone to interact with her. We W.P.(Crl.)No.496/09 -2- have specifically asked her both in Court and later in the Chamber whether she wants to meet and interact with the petitioner herein. She stated that she does not want to. 4. After lunch recess, we ascertained the response of the alleged detenue Sumimol. Ms.Sumimol states categorically before us that she is not under the illegal detention or confinement of anyone. According to her, it is true that she did know the petitioner and had some connections with him. But, according to her, she had not decided to marry him. She admitted that certain documents were executed by her. But she takes the stand that she did not thereby intend to get married to the petitioner herein. 5. It is reported to the Court that the marriage of Ms.Sumimol has already taken place on 28.11.2009 with one Rajesh with whom she has come to Court today. It is stated that the alleged detenue knew Rajesh for a period of about five years he being her neighbour. It is also suggested by the alleged detenue Ms.Sumimol that she was in love with the said Rajesh for a period of about five years. She states categorically that she is not under detention or confinement and that she has got married on 28.11.2009 with Rajesh voluntarily and willingly. The alleged detenue and her father submit that the marriage has been duly solemnised, but no certificate is produced. The learned W.P.(Crl.)No.496/09 -3- Government Pleader has shown to us from the case diary a 'Vivahapathrika' bearing the seal of the SNDP Yogam Office, Kollam which reveals that the marriage between the alleged detenue Sumimol K.U. and Rajesh Kumar has taken place on 28.11.2009. A copy of that certificate is available in the case diary and we have perused the same. Before we dictated the order, we interacted with the said Rajesh who also confirmed that his marriage with the alleged detenue had taken place on 28.11.2009. He confirms that he knows the alleged detenue and they have been in love for that past more than four years. 6. As stated earlier, this petition was filed on 25.11.2009 and the marriage of the alleged detenue appeared to have taken place on 28.11.2009. To disabuse the impression in us that the marriage was hurriedly performed to precipitate a fail accompli, we in the course of our interactions with the alleged detenue and later with her father ascertained the details and it is submitted by both that the marriage was fixed earlier in November, 2009 and it is after all the arrangements for the marriage were made that notice in this petition was received. It is asserted both by the alleged detenue as also her father, the 3rd respondent that the marriage was not solemnised hurriedly to frustrate the reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition. W.P.(Crl.)No.496/09 -4- 7. 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. We are satisfied from her submissions that she is not under any such illegal detention or confinement. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Ms.Sumimol, the alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court as desired by her along with Rajesh, her husband and the 3rd respondent, her father. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn