IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 250 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SALEEM, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SALAHUDHEEN, KALILAZHIKATH VEEDU, EDAMULAKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. SATHEESAN PANTHANAPURATHU, VALAKOM VALAKOM PANCHAYATH, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682316. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier orders resting with the order dated 21.07.2010 in this matter. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by a counsel. The 3rd respondent is present. He has not engaged any counsel. Along with the 3rd respondent, the alleged detenue Jitha Satheesan is also present. 3. We are really shocked and disturbed to note that parties have not stood by the commitments made before us which we have recorded in the order dated 21.07.2010. We are informed that the marriage was not registered on 26.07.2010 as agreed. We enquired about the reasons. We are informed that the parents of the alleged detenue did not take her to the office of the Marriage Officer on 26.07.2010 as agreed before us. The 3rd respondent, who is personally present, was requested to explain. He submits that he could not raise the requisite W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 2 amounts and was convinced that he will not be able to raise the requisite amount by 20.09.2010, on which day a reception was agreed to be conducted. Hence he did not take his daughter to the Registrar's office as agreed by him before us on 21.07.2010, he submits. Be that as it may, why was the alleged detenue not taken to the office of the Marriage Registrar on 26.07.2010 as agreed by him, we queried. The 3rd respondent only explains that as he found that the reception could not be held before 20.09.2010, he did not comply with the obligation to produce the alleged detenue before the Marriage Officer on 26.07.2010. 4. We are convinced that the reason advanced by the 3rd respondent is most unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The petitioner and his counsel graciously submit that they do not want to press for cost and the petitioner has persuaded himself to accept the explanation without demur. 5. What next, is the question we have to consider. The alleged detenue states that she wants to go along with the petitioner. The 3rd respondent states that appropriate orders in accordance with the desire of the alleged detenue may be passed. W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 3 6. The petitioner and the alleged detenue are adult major persons. The alleged detenue is aged 24 years (date of birth - 14.04.1986). She is educated, she being a M.Sc. Bio Technology post graduate. Notice has already been given under the Special Marriage Act. The marriage can now be registered in accordance with law on any date. 7. The petitioner and the alleged detenue undertake that marriage under the Special Marriage Act shall be solemnised at the earliest, ie. 29.07.2010. They undertake to produce the certificate of marriage along with a copy thereof for being furnished to the 3rd respondent on the next date of posting. 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) The alleged detenue Jitha Satheesan, aged 24 years, is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner as desired by her; c) We accept the undertaking of the petitioner and the alleged detenue that they shall produce certificate of marriage along with a copy thereof before this Court on the next date of posting, ie. 06.08.2010. W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 4 9. Call on 06.08.2010 on the Bench. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.250 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 Ms.Jitha Satheesan, the daughter of the 3rd respondent. She is aged 24 years (date of birth - 14.04.1986). She is a Post Graduate in Bio Technology. According to the petitioner he and the alleged detenue Jitha Satheesan are in love. They have decided to get married. Notice under the Special Marriage Act has already been issued on 21.06.2010 to the Sub Registrar, W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 6 Anchal. They are to get married on any day on or after 21.07.2010. But the parents and relatives of the alleged detenue Jitha Satheesan are not approving the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. The petitioner aired an apprehension that the alleged detenue is under illegal detention and confinement of her father, the 3rd respondent. 2. This petition was filed on 28.06.2010. It was admitted on the same day. Notice was ordered to the respondents. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by a counsel. The 3rd respondent is present along with his wife. He is also represented by a counsel. Along with the 3rd respondent, the alleged detenue has also come to Court. 4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 3rd respondent, we permitted her to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone to interact with her. However she stated that she wants to speak to the petitioner. Accordingly we permitted the petitioner and the alleged detenue to speak to each other during the pre lunch session. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 7 detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner also. Counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader are also present. 6. The alleged detenue Jitha Satheesan informs us that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. However, she confirms that she wants to get married to the petitioner herein and that she has voluntarily given notice under the Special Marriage Act on 21.06.2010. She only prays that she may be permitted to get the marriage solemnised and join the petitioner as his legally married wife. The petitioner confirms that he is willing to marry the alleged detenue under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 7. We attempted to induce the parties to come to a harmonious settlement. We find that the possibility of such a harmonious settlement is opening up. Accordingly as agreed by all concerned, we issue the following directions: i) The alleged detenue Jitha Satheesan shall today return from Court along with her parents - the 3rd respondent and his wife; W.P(Crl.) No.250 of 2010 8 b) She shall reside along with her parents and her parents shall bring her to Court on 21.07.2010; iii) Till that date, the parents of the alleged detenue shall be at liberty to advise, counsel and guide the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue must give to us her final response on 21.07.2010; iv) The learned Government Pleader shall ascertain before 21.07.2010 whether there is any legal impediment against the solemnisation of marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue as per Ext.P3 notice of marriage given by them; v) It is agreed that the petitioner and the alleged detenue can interact with each other over the telephone till 21.07.2010 every day two times, ie. between 8 a.m and 9 a.m and 8 p.m and 9 p.m. 8. Call again on 21.07.2010. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/