IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 495 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.G.RAMAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE GOVINDAN, PONMALACHERUVIL HOUSE,AMALAGIRI PO, MANNANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KOTTAYAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM. 4. JAYAKRISHNAN,S/O.M.P.KRISHNANKUTTY, MOOKKILAVALAPPIL HOUSE,PIDAVANNOOR PO, KONJIYOOR,CHANGARAMKULAM,MALAPPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R4 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 495 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT 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 daughter Aswathi, a young woman aged 23 years (date of birth - 9/4/87). She is a B.Com. degree holder. She is not employed. She was attending a computer course. She was allegedly found to be missing from 29/11/10. The efforts of the petitioner to trace the alleged detenue, his daughter Aswathi, did not succeed and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court on 15/12/10. 2. It is reported that the alleged detenue had appeared before the learned Magistrate on 6/12/10. But, according to the petitioner, he did not get opportunity to interact with the alleged W.P.(Cri) No. 495 of 2010 -: 2 :- detenue, his daughter. According to him, his daughter was being illegally detained and confined by the 4th respondent, who is a maternal first cousin of the alleged detenue. 3. This petition was admitted on 15/12/10. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date. 4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. His wife Ponnamma Krishnan accompanies him. He is represented by his counsel. 5. The 4th respondent is present. He is represented by his counsel. Along with him, his father Mr.Krishnankutty has also come to Court. 6. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 4th respondent, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with no opportunity for the 4th respondent to influence her. We permitted the petitioner and his wife, the parents of the alleged detenue, to interact with her. They were thus given opportunity to interact during the pre- lunch session. 7. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we interacted with them in the presence of the 4th respondent and his father. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the W.P.(Cri) No. 495 of 2010 -: 3 :- learned Government Pleader were also present. 8. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement of any one. She, an adult major woman aged 23 years, had left her parents on her own. She is in love with the 4th respondent. They had decided to get married. Their marriage took place on 12/12/10 at the Sree Kannekavu Bhagavathy Temple, Mookkuthala. They are living as husband and wife after such marriage. The couple have the blessings of the father of the 4th respondent. The marriage has not been registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules; but necessary steps in that direction are being taken. 9. The 4th respondent and his father speak in terms of the statement given by the alleged detenue. The 4th respondent has got married to the alleged detenue, he asserts. His father Mr. Krishnankutty also confirms that such marriage has taken place at the temple observing the customary religious formalities. 10. The petitioner and his wife are unable to accept the marital tie between the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent. They cannot legally get married. They are in the position of brother and sister, they being the children of sisters. In these circumstances, the petitioner and his wife are unable to approve W.P.(Cri) No. 495 of 2010 -: 4 :- the marital tie between the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent. Even Mr. Krishnankutty, father of the 4th respondent, is aware of the strange nature of the marriage; but he states that as the children have taken a firm decision, he does not want to stand against their wishes even though initially he was not too enthusiastic about the marriage between them. 11. The parents of the alleged detenue requested the alleged detenue to go with them for a couple of days - at least, till 23/12/10 so that they can get an opportunity to speak to her and counsel, guide and advise her. We also supported the said request of the petitioner and wanted to ascertain whether such a course can be followed. The alleged detenue and the 4th respondent did not agree to that proposal. 12. In a petition for issue of a writ of a writ of habeas corpus, this Court is primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. The alleged detenue in this case is a 23 year old educated woman. We are satisfied from her response that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. This Court in a petition like this is not concerned with the morality or the social acceptability of the relationship between the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent as spouses. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or W.P.(Cri) No. 495 of 2010 -: 5 :- confinement. We are hence satisfied that this petition only deserves to be dismissed. We express no opinion about the validity, acceptability or morality of the alleged marital tie between the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent. 13. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) The alleged detenue, who has come to Court along with the 4th respondent, is permitted to leave this Court along with the 4th respondent and his father. (c) Receipt No.339 dated 11/12/10 issued by the Trustee of Sree Kannekavu Bhagavathy Temple, Mookkuthala, is returned by us to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent who has produced the same. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge