IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 25 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAGGEN G.NATH, AGED 29, S/O.GOPINATHAN, R/AT KRISHNA NIVAS, NEAR NCC JUNCTION, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION. 2. RAVEENDRAN, PERRORKADA NAGAR RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, F-12A, AMBALAMUKKU, KAWADIAR P.O. 3. SAJAM SUDHAKAR, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, PEROORKADA NAGAR, RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION F-12A, AMBALAMUKKU, KAWADIAR P.O. ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R2-3 SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl.) 25 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JANUARY 19, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of petitioner's legally wedded wife by name Parvathy Raveendran. 2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Hndu Viswakarma community and the marriage between himself and the alleged detenu was solemnized on 7.11.2008. Ext.P1 is the certificate issued by the Muthukulam Panchayath. They were in love. It is further stated that the affair had been continuing with the silent consent of respondents 2 and 3 who are the parents of the alleged detenu. The further case of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 fixed another marriage for their daughter and she eloped with the petitioner and thus their marriage was solemnized without the consent and blessings of respondents 2 and 3. Ext.P2 is the series of photographs. It is also stated that the petitioner's parents and relatives compelled him to conduct the marriage reception by inviting his relatives and friends. There was a grand reception function on 24.1.2009. Thereafter it is stated that respondents 2 and 3 began to contact the petitioner's wife and it is finally contended that the WP(Crl.)25/2010 2 petitioner's wife is under illegal custody of respondents 2 and 3 from 28.12.2009. 3. The alleged detenu was present before us. So was the petitioner. We interacted with the detenu. The detenue would state that she is not under any illegal detention. In the light of this the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to any of the remedies available to the parties in law. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-