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 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 11 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NISHAD, MELARAYIL HOUSE, POOKKARATHARA, EDAPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.SUSHANTH.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUKKOLA, SCHOOLPADI, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN. ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.K.MADHU SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No.11 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his fiancee - `Dhanusha' by name. The averments in the petition show that the marriage between Dhanusha - the alleged detenue, and the petitioner was fixed. It was scheduled to take place on 9/1/10. The petitioner, who was employed abroad, had come from his place of employment to get the marriage performed and solemnised. But, according to the petitioner, subsequently the respondent, who is the father of the alleged detenue, has not been permitting him and the alleged detenue to interact. The petitioner, in these circumstances, apprehended that the alleged detenue is under W.P.(Cri) No.11 of 2010 -: 2 :- illegal detention. It is, in these circumstances, that this petition has been filed. 2. Notice was issued in the petition. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner and the respondent are present. They are represented by their counsel. The alleged detenue - Dhanusha, aged 24 years, has come to this Court along with the respondent herein. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. We have heard both sides. We have interacted with the alleged detenue - Dhanusha, in open court. 3. The respondent asserts in the counter affidavit and Dhanusha states before us that she is a Post Graduate (M.Sc.). She is aged 24 years. She did not know the petitioner prior to the proposal for marriage. Subsequently, they have been interacting. The marriage has been called off at the initiative of the respondent and the alleged detenue consequent to certain unfavourable information received by them against the petitioner. We do not think it necessary to advert in detail to the alleged unfavourable information received by the alleged detenue and the respondent as those reasons do not appear to be relevant now in this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. 4. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under W.P.(Cri) No.11 of 2010 -: 3 :- any illegal detention or confinement. We note that the alleged detenue and the respondent are not interested in getting the marriage between the alleged detenue and the petitioner performed as agreed to earlier. Whatever be the reasons that prompt them to call off the marriage at a late stage, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no case of illegal detention or confinement justifying the invocation of our jurisdiction to issue of a writ of habeas corpus under Art.226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the contestants submit that certain other issues between the parties regarding return of horoscope, articles etc., shall be attempted to be settled harmoniously between them with the help of the counsel. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge