IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 241 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SURENDRA BABU.M.S., AGED 53, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MANNMUMADOTHIL, KANJEETTUKARA, AYROOR SOUTH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., HOME DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SAJAD.S., ZAM ZAM-S.M.R.A., PUTHUSSERRY, VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 543. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. KAMAPPU FOR R1-3 ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R4 SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN FOR R4 SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R4 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R4 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R4 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R4 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R4 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P.(Cri)No.241 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by us resting with the order dated 19.08.2010. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. Along with him, the alleged detenue and Rajesh, the husband of the alleged detenue, have come to Court. The petitioner is represented by a counsel. The 4th respondent has appeared before Court. No counsel has appeared for him today. The 4th respondent has brought to Court all the articles belonging to the alleged detenue-Indu, which, according to him, are available with him. They include 6 bags containing clothes, a digital camera, a purse and a gold thali. These articles are handed over by the 4th respondent to the alleged detenue-Indu, who received the same with the statement that nothing more belonging to her remains with the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent states that a big gold thali and 4 sim cards belonging W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 2 to him are in the possession of the alleged detenue-Indu. The petitioner states that 4 sim cards have been destroyed by him to avoid the attempt of the 4th respondent to contact the alleged detenue. He returns the big gold thali to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent has accepted the same in full satisfaction stating that nothing more remains to be exchanged. 3. The petitioner, the alleged detenue, and her husband Rajesh submit that they are residing harmoniously and there is no outstanding disputes between them. The alleged detenue Indu continues to reside with the petitioner and Rajesh, the husband of the alleged detenue-Indu, visits her whenever he finds time. He is employed at Ernakulam, it is submitted. 4. The petitioner, the alleged detenue and Sri.Rajesh now submit that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition and this Writ Petition may, in these circumstances, be closed permitting the alleged detenue to return from Court along with her father, the petitioner and her husband Sri.Rajesh. We are satisfied that the proceedings in this Writ Petition can now be finally closed. 5. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 3 b) The alleged detenue-Indu is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner, her father and Sri.Rajesh, her husband, as desired by her. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 ORDER 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 married daughter Indu by name, aged 29 years, and the W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 5 mother of two minor children - both girls, aged 4 ½ and 2 ½ years. The alleged detenue Indu is married to one Rajesh. She was found missing from 15.06.2010 along with her two children. A crime was registered as Crime No.295 of 2010 of Keezhvayur Police Station under the caption `woman missing' on the complaint of the husband of the alleged detenue. This petition was admitted on 23.06.2010 and the case was posted to this date. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with Rajesh, the husband of the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with the petitioner. Her two minor daughters have also been brought to Court by her. It is submitted that she had appeared before the police along with the 4th respondent, who, the petitioner alleged and apprehended, was illegally detaining her. The minor children were also taken to the Police Station by the alleged detenue. She was produced before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate by order dated 28.06.2010 entrusted the alleged detenue and the two minor children with the petitioner with directions to produce her before this Court today. It is accordingly that the petitioner, Rajesh, the alleged detenu and W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 6 the two minor children have come before this Court. The 4th respondent Sajad is present. He is represented by a counsel. 3. The alleged detenue states that she does not want to go with her husband or her father. She is willing to hand over both the children to either her husband or her father. She wants to go along with the 4th respondent, she submits. 4. The 4th respondent submits that he is a married person and that he is not at the moment able to take the alleged detenue along with him. According to him, if that is necessary, he is willing to afford protection for the alleged detenue. 5. We find the alleged detenue in a state of absolute confusion. We are persuaded to feel that in her interest it will only be proper to permit her to go along with her children to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner offers to look after her and do all that is needed for the alleged detenue and her two children. The husband of the alleged detenue Rajesh submits that he is willing to forget all the indiscretions of the alleged detenue for all what has happened and forgive her. He expresses the hope that a harmonious marriage can be resumed. 6. The alleged detenue still states that she does not want to go with her husband or the petitioner. Accordingly the W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 7 petitioner offers that the alleged detenue can now be accommodated at Ayroor Carmel, Agathy Mandiram, as a paying guest if the alleged detenue wants it. The alleged detenue may be given some time to think, contemplate, consider and convey her response to Court, prays the petitioner. 7. We discussed the matter further with the alleged detenue. She now agrees that she shall return along with the petitioner and if necessary get admitted at the said Agathy Mandiram as a paying guest. We give her two weeks' time to convey her response. Accordingly we direct that the case be called on 19.07.2010 for appropriate further orders. The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner. We accept the submission of the petitioner, the father of the alleged detenue, that if necessary the alleged detenue shall be accommodated at the said Agathy Mandiram till 19.07.2010. We expect that the alleged detenue shall be able to take an informed decision in the interest of hers and her children by that date. 8. Call on 19.07.2010 at 1.45 p.m in the Chamber. The petitioner shall produce the alleged detenue before Court on that date. W.P(Crl.) No.241 of 2010 8 (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/