IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 306 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BINDU,D/O.KAMALASANAN, AGED 39 YEARS,RESIDING AT ALAKOTTU MANAYIL, MEZHUVELI P.O.,MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERI TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. SAJILAL VASUDEVAN,S/O.VASUDEVAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,ILLIKKULATH BHAVAN, NEDUVARAMKODU P.O.,ALA,CHENGANNUR. 2. VASUDEVAN,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,ILLIKKULATH BHAVAN, NEDUVARAMKODU P.O.,ALA,CHENGANNUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,KOCHI CITY. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. ADDL.R5 AND R6 IMPLEADED:- ADDL.R5: SMT.USHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASHA KENDRA LADIES HOSTEL, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, WELFARE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM. ADDL.R6: P.K.BHARATHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PERUBALATHU HOUSE, ALA P.O., CHENGANOOR NOW RESIDING AT 307, FOURTH STREAT, MORSAN CITY, LOUISIANA 70380, U.S.A. ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 AND R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 18.8.09 ON I.A.No.10461/09 IN W.P.(Crl.)306/09. ADV. SRI.SUSHANTH.J. FOR R1,2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R3 & R4 ADV.R.SUDHA FOR ADDL.R5 SRI.JOSE MATHEW (PALACHUVADU) FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.306 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T 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 her daughter Ms.Anjana Bharathan, a girl aged about 19 years. The petitioner is now aged 40 years. 6th respondent was the husband of the petitioner. He is the father of the alleged detenue. The relationship between the petitioner and the 6th respondent has ended in divorce, though it is submitted that they maintain a good relationship between each other, even now. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue was residing with her. Respondents 1 and 2 are their neighbours. At the time of divorce of the petitioner, she was facing difficulties and help and assistance was offered by respondents 1 and 2. They are son and father. 1st respondent became friendly with the family. According to the petitioner, there is a distant relationship between respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner. W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 2 2. According to the petitioner, she found improper relationship between the alleged detenue and the first respondent and she hence took the alleged detenue to the house of the 6th respondent at Chengannur. The alleged detenue was allegedly taken away by the first respondent from there and she was admitted to Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel, South Janatha Road, Palarivattom. The petitioner permitted the alleged detenue to continue in that hostel. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue is not available in the said hostel and she is allegedly detained and confined by the first respondent. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 3.8.2009. 3. The petition was admitted on 4.8.2009. The matter has been adjourned from time to time. This judgment must be read in continuation of the orders passed by this Court resting finally with the order dated 1.10.2009. 4. The alleged detenue appeared before Court. The first respondent also appeared before Court. The second respondent , W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 3 a person aged 70 years appeared before Court through counsel. The same counsel appears for the 1st respondent also. Later, the 5th respondent, who runs the Asha Kendra Hostel was also arrayed as a respondent. She has appeared before Court through counsel. She states that it is true that the alleged detenue is residing in the hostel run by her. According to her, the alleged detenue is not guilty of any improper behaviour. She follows the rules of the hostel satisfactorily. It is not correct to say that she has not been returning to the hostel on many nights. It is the case of the 5th respondent that the alleged detenue observes the rules of the hostel satisfactorily. 5. We have interacted with all the parties in the Chamber. We have interacted with the petitioner, the alleged detenue and the first respondent. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 have also participated in the interactions. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 6. The first respondent who was initially appearing before W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 4 Court, later sought the permission of the Court to be represented by his counsel as he had to leave to the US, where he has business interests. Thereafter he was represented by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The alleged detenue refuses to return with the petitioner. She advances various reasons for the same. We are not convinced of the reasons so stated. But we do not want to advert to them in detail. According to her, she must be permitted to continue in the hostel run by the 5th respondent. She submits that she has not acted improperly,immorally or amorally. In these circumstances, there is no need whatsoever to insist on shifting her residence from her present hostel to anywhere else. She asserts that she wants to complete her studies, take up employment and lead an independent life of her own. 7. The first respondent took up the stand that he has been helping the family of the petitioner to tide over their difficulties. He asserts that he is willing to finance the education and accommodation of the alleged detenue. So long as she W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 5 wants to study, he is willing to meet the expenses for the same. This, he is willing to do, because of his prior commitments and on account of philanthropic motives. He has no objection against the alleged detenue shifting her residence with the petitioner or to the ancestral house of the 6th respondent or to any other hostel. If the alleged detenue is willing for the same, she may be permitted to do so, submits the 1st respondent and his counsel. 8. The petitioner and the 6th respondent submitted that continuance of the alleged detenue in the Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel would not be conducive to the interest of the alleged detenue, a young woman aged about 19 years. It is agreed by all concerned that the alleged detenue was born on 9.2.1990. Though, the 5th respondent disputes that, the petitioner as also the counsel for the 6th respondent express the apprehension that the alleged detenue may go astray and shall not be in a position to lead a proper and healthy life in the Asha Kendra Hostel. They raised a grievance that the 1st respondent has been taking her out from the Hostel and they are seen behaving improperly. The W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 6 alleged detenue and the 1st respondent do not deny the fact that they have been interacting with each other. The first respondent stated before us that he does take the alleged detenue to restaurants and to the cinema theaters. But, according to the first respondent and the alleged detenue, there is absolutely no impropriety or immorality in the relationship between them. To a specific question put by the Court, they stated categorically that at the moment they have taken no decision to enter into a long standing marital relationship. They do not deny such possibility in future. 9. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent is willing to meet the educational and residential expenses of the alleged detenue. She can join any respectable hostel and the 6th respondent shall meet all the expenses for the same, asserts the 6th respondent through his counsel. The 6th respondent shall pay the amounts necessary in advance. He shall make deposit of the amounts, if that is necessary. He is willing to do anything to ensure that the alleged W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 7 detenue does not continue in the Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel and shifts her residence with the petitioner, to his ancestral house or to any other respectable hostel. 10. In our anxiety to ensure that the parties try a harmonious settlement, we have suggested many alternatives and have posted the case from time to time. We are now convinced that our attempts to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement has failed. This is primarily due to the adamant insistence of the alleged detenue that she is not willing to shift from Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel as requested by her father and mother. According to her, there is nothing wrong in the Asha Kendra Hostel and she has taken an informed decision to continue there. 11. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The alleged detenue is an adult woman, she having crossed the aged of 19 years now. She has her decisional autonomy. It is impossible for the petitioner or the 6th respondent to keep the alleged detenue with them or in any other hostel, without the W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 8 consent of the alleged detenue. She asserts that she is unwilling to follow any other course. This Court cannot interfere with the discretion and the decision exercised by the alleged detenue, an adult woman about her own future. We tried to counsel her and to persuade her to heed to the request of her mother and father. But she refused to do the same. 12. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, primarily the Court is concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue has been detained or confined against her wishes, will and volition. We are satisfied that there is no confinement or detention of the alleged detenue in this case. She being an adult woman, who is unwilling to heed to the request of her parents, we feel that the only option available to the Court is to allow her to pursue what she thinks proper. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent asserts that so long as the alleged detenue resides in the Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel, it shall be zealously ensured that she complies with all the rules of the hostel. That undertaking is given by the 5th respondent. W.P.(Crl.).No.306/09 9 13. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this Writ Petition can only be dismissed. 14. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The alleged detenue Ms.Anjana Bharathan is permitted to return to Asha Kendra Ladies Hostel as insisted by her. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn