IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 485 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANAMADATHIL SANKARA NARAYANAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, "SAROVARAM", PADINJATTUMURI P.O., KOOTTILANGADI VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676506. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, 676519. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, 676519. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI. 5. BINU, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAMBEESAN, POOMANGALATH HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI P.O., PIN 676506, KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. PARAMESWARAN NAMBEESAN, POOMANGALATH HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI P.O., PIN 676506, KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 485 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT 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 daughter `Nitha', a young woman aged above 23 years (date of birth - 28/6/87). She has already passed Teachers Training Course. She is a student of the final year degree course. Her marriage was scheduled to take place on 26/1/11. An engagement ceremony was performed on 7/11/10. But the alleged detenue was found missing from 6/12/10. The petitioner apprehended that the alleged detenue is being illegally detained by the 5th respondent in active collusion with his father the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent and the petitioner are neighbours. As the attempts made directly and through police W.P.(Cri) No. 485 of 2010 -: 2 :- to trace the alleged detenue did not succeed, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 13/12/10. 2. This petition was admitted on 14/12/10 and notice was ordered to the respondents. 3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Along with him, his brother has also come to Court. Respondents 1 to 4 are represented by learned Government Pleader. Respondents 5 and 6 have come to Court. The 6th respondent is represented by a counsel. Along with the 5th respondent, the alleged detenue has also come to Court. 4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with the 5th respondent, who is allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with no opportunity for the 5th respondent to influence her. We permitted the petitioner and his brother to have interactions with the alleged detenue. During the pre-lunch session, the petitioner and his brother thus had interactions with the alleged detenue. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later, we interacted with her in the presence of the 5th respondent. The petitioner and his brother, W.P.(Cri) No. 485 of 2010 -: 3 :- the 6th respondent and other relatives of the 6th respondent as also the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader were present. 6. The alleged detenue and the 5th respondent submit that they are in love. They had decided to get married and had gone away. Both of them have taken up employment at Chennai in a Call Centre. They are employed and are working there. Their marriage has been solemnized in accordance with the Hindu religious rites at a Devi Temple in T. Nagar, Chennai. They have no documents to prove such a marriage between them. According to them, they are both adults aged 23 years and 29 years. They have decided to get married and have undergone a ceremony of marriage at a temple though they have no documents to prove the same. They want to live together. They pray that they may be permitted to leave Court together as legally wedded spouses. They undertake before Court that they shall produce a marriage certificate to confirm that their marriage has been solemnized and registered in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was not informed of the relationship between the alleged detenue and W.P.(Cri) No. 485 of 2010 -: 4 :- the 5th respondent. With the consent of the alleged detenue, an engagement ceremony was conducted and her marriage with another person is scheduled to take place on 26/1/11. The petitioner now states that he has no objection against the alleged detenue going with the 5th respondent. Copy of the certificate of marriage may be insisted, it is prayed by the petitioner. 8. According to the 6th respondent, he has no objection against the decision of the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent to get married to each other. But he does not want to accept them. He does not now want them to live along with him. The alleged detenue and the 5th respondent are at liberty to take whatever course they think is proper and correct, submits the 6th respondent. 9. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied from our interactions with the parties that the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent are not under any illegal confinement or detention. They have voluntarily taken the decision to get married to each other. According to them, already such a marriage has been solemnized. According to them, they have both secured employment at Chennai and are W.P.(Cri) No. 485 of 2010 -: 5 :- residing together as husband and wife. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is no element of illegal detention or confinement in the joint residence of the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent together at Chennai. 10. We have no reason to not accept the statement that they are legally married husband and wife. The petitioner and the 6th respondent appear to have reconciled to the inevitable. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent can be permitted to leave Court together. We accept their undertaking that a marriage certificate to confirm that the marriage has taken place between them issued in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules shall be produced before us if sufficient time is given to them. They can either produce a certificate to confirm the marriage which has already taken place or if they are unable to produce any material in support of the same, they can get their marriage solemnized and registered afresh in accordance with the Hindu religious rites or under the Special Marriage Act and produce the requisite certificate. 11. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) We accept the submission/undertaking of the alleged W.P.(Cri) No. 485 of 2010 -: 6 :- detenue and the 5th respondent that they shall, by the next date of posting, produce before this Court a certificate to confirm that they are legally wedded spouses copies thereof shall be furnished on the next date of posting to both the petitioner and the 6th respondent. 12. Call this petition again on 14/1/11 for production of the marriage certificate along with a copy thereof. 13. The 5th respondent and the alleged detenue are not represented by counsel. The learned Government Pleader submits that he shall explain to them and shall give them necessary directions and guidance to get their marriage solemnized and registered in accordance with law. 14. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge