IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 256 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANITHA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. JAYAN, MALVETTIL HOUSE, C/O. SHOBANA KRISHNANKUTTY, JAWHAR ROAD, P.O. PALAKKAL, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR. 2. BIJU, S/O. SHANKARANKUTTYMENON, VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, KANJOOR DESOM, PUDUKAD VILLAGE THRISSUR. 3. SOWDAMINI, W/O. SHANKARANKUTTY MENON VAZHAPPILY HOUSE, KANJOOR DESOM, PUDUKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 4. BISHOP VAYALIL HOSPITAL MOOLAMATTAM, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.256 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner has come to this court with a prayer for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to cause the production of her friend Jayan, a person aged about 40 years. Respondents 2 and 3 are the elder brother and mother respectively of the alleged detenu. The 4th respondent is a hospital represented by its Public Relations Officer where the alleged detenu was admitted. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the alleged detenu Jayan is earlier married and has a child in such earlier marriage, he has married the petitioner again in accordance with Hindu religious rites on 25/12/2001 at Dubai. She claims herself to be the wife of the alleged detenu. But in the light of her own statement that he has earlier married and such matrimony is not dissolved, her claim for the status of wife is indeed suspect. Be that as it may, the precise grievance raised by the petitioner - whether as a friend or as the wife of the alleged detenu, is that the alleged detenu is detained at the 4th respondent hospital W.P.Crl No.256/09 2 against his will and without his consent. He is actually under illegal detention and confinement at that hospital at the instance of respondents 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent is illegally obliging respondents 2 and 3 in an attempt to keep the alleged detenu Jayan away from the petitioner. It was, in these circumstances, prayed that a writ of habeas corpus may be issued to search for, trace and produce the alleged detenu before this court and to set him at liberty. 3. This writ petition was filed on 03/07/2009. The same was admitted on that day and notice was ordered to the respondents by special messenger. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and her counsel are present. The 3rd respondent is represented by a counsel. She is also present personally. The 2nd respondent is not available in India now, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. He has not been served and notice addressed to him has been served on the 3rd respondent, his mother. 4. The 4th respondent has received notice. Mr.Charles, Public Relations Officer of the 4th respondent hospital is present before court. The alleged detenu is also present before court. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the 1st respondent W.P.Crl No.256/09 3 submits that the police had searched the premises of the 4th respondent yesterday and found that the alleged detenu was admitted as an in-patient in that hospital. The 4th respondent agreed and undertook to ensure the presence of the alleged detenu before court today and hence the police did not take any further action, reports the learned Government Pleader. The police officials from the concerned police station are present before court. 5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the alleged detenu is married and has a child in such relationship. The alleged detenu had met with an accident in 2003 and he has allegedly fallen a victim to alcoholism thereafter. He had developed some relationship with the petitioner herein allegedly in December 2008 and it is the case of the 3rd respondent that it is an illegal and illicit relationship. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is not and cannot be legally married to the alleged detenu who has already united in matrimony earlier with his first wife. Claim for status of the 2nd wife by the petitioner is untenable, contends the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has a grievance that the petitioner is leading a licentious life and the W.P.Crl No.256/09 4 alleged detenu had fallen a prey to her machinations. According to the 3rd respondent, because of trends of alcoholism and suicidal mania shown by the alleged detenu, the 2nd respondent his brother, who is employed abroad, had persuaded the alleged detenu to get himself hospitalised for treatment of de-addiction etc. Accordingly, he was admitted in the hospital on 03/06/2009. It is not a case whether the alleged detenu was illegally detained or confined. The detenu has accepted the request of respondents 2 and 3 in his own interest to undergo treatment at the 4th respondent hospital. In the wake of this petition filed by the petitioner, the hospital authorities have been contacted and they have now discharged the alleged detenu from the hospital on 07/07/2009, submits the 3rd respondent. The requisite bills at the hospital have already been paid and claim has been settled by the 3rd respondent, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has handed over to the court a discharge summary dated 07/07/2009 issued by the Chief Psychiatrist of the 4th respondent hospital. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent would like the alleged detenu to continue his treatment at the hospital as an out patient now and that there has never been any intention to W.P.Crl No.256/09 5 illegally detain or confine the alleged detenu. It is for him in his own interest now to continue the treatment. Appropriate orders may be passed by this court, in these circumstances, it is prayed. 6. The 4th respondent is not represented by any counsel. The P.R.O who is present does not make any submissions before court on his own. 7. We have interacted with the alleged detenu Jayan. He states that he is aged 40 years. He is unable to remember his date of birth though he asserts that he was born in 1969. He admits that he, along with his brother, had gone to the 4th respondent hospital on 03/06/2009 for treatment relating to de- addiction. After reaching there, an injection was administered to the alleged detenu and thereafter he lost his consciousness. Subsequently, when he regained consciousness, he realised that he was admitted in the hospital. His mother, the 3rd respondent used to contact him over the telephone; but he was not permitted to contact anyone, submits the alleged detenu. To a pointed query by this court, the alleged detenu answered that he has now been discharged from the hospital and he has no complaints about anyone or of any alleged illegal confinement or detention. To another query by this court as W.P.Crl No.256/09 6 to where he would like to go, if he is given that option by the court, he asserts that he would like to go from court with the petitioner Anitha. The morality of the association between the petitioner and the alleged detenu is totally outside the purview and scope of our jurisdiction now. We are satisfied that the petitioner is not under any illegal detention or confinement, going by his own version. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The alleged detenu, it is made clear, has liberty to leave the court as a person enjoying all freedom in accordance with law. True to his wishes/statement, he is permitted to leave the court along with Anitha, the petitioner herein. The discharge summary furnished to the court by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent shall be kept along with the records in this writ petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.Crl No.256/09 7 W.P.Crl No.256/09 8 W.P.Crl No.256/09 9 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009