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 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 239 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANSHAD A., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HUSSAIN, ANSHAD MANZIL, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. ABDUL RAHIM, KOCHAYYATHU, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN-690523. 5. MUSTHAFA, S/O.HAMEED KUNJU, KOCHAYYATHU, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN 690523. 6. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.HAMEED KUNJU, KOCHAYYATHU, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN 690523. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4,5,6 SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI FOR R4,5,6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(CRL) NO. 239 OF 2010 ============================ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier orders in the matter resting with the order dated 25/6/2010. 2. The alleged detenue was accommodated at Santhinikethan Hostel, Pachalam, Ernakulam. She has today been brought from the said hostel. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. Respondents 4,5 and 6 and their counsel are not present. As stated earlier, the alleged detenue has come to court. 4. The alleged detenue asserts that she wants to leave the court along with the petitioner. She asserts that she has not W.P.CRL. 239/2010 2 been married to one Sheriff as asserted by respondents 4 to 6 on the last date of posting. According to her, there has been absolutely no legal marriage between her and the said Sheriff. She had no intention to marry him. She had made it clear to her father and relatives long prior to the date fixed for her marriage with the said Sheriff that she has no intention to marry him and she is unwilling to marry him. 5. In these circumstances both the petitioner and the alleged detenue assert that the alleged detenue had not contracted any marriage on 20/6/2010 as alleged by respondents 4 to 6. The said Sheriff is not her husband. She had communicated to the said Sheriff that she was not willing to marry him or live with him. At the marriage panthal, she had declared her unwillingness to get married to Sheriff and, in these circumstances, the alleged detenue and the petitioner assert that the petitioner cannot be reckoned as the wife of the said Sheriff. 6. We note that nothing has been placed before us to even remotely indicate that a valid marriage between the said Sheriff and the alleged detenue had taken place. In the absence of any better material, we are left with no choice but to accept the W.P.CRL. 239/2010 3 assertions of the petitioner and the alleged detenue that the alleged detenue has not got married to the said Sheriff. We do not however want to pronounce finally on the question. We are just taking note of the fact that there is nothing before us to show that there was such a marriage between the alleged detenue and the petitioner. The said Sheriff, we note, is not a party to the proceedings. 7. The petitioner and the alleged detenue stated that they are in love and they want to get married to each other. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, and the alleged detenue agrees, that they propose to get their marriage solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The needful shall be done to get such marriage registered in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the alleged detenue. 8. The alleged detenue asserts that she wants to go with the petitioner. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are concerned only with the question whether the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement or detention. She has come W.P.CRL. 239/2010 4 from the custody of respondents 4 to 6. As she did not desire to go back along with them in their custody, she was accommodated at the Santhinikethan Hostel from 25/6/2010 till today. Today, respondents 4 to 6 are not present also. 9. We do not intend to express our opinion on any other aspect. But we are persuaded to accept the statement of the alleged detenue, Ruslath, an adult major woman, aged above 18 years (date of birth – 4/5/1992) that she does not want to return along with respondents 4 to 6. Respondents 4 to 6 surprisingly have not chosen to come to court today. Though it was suggested last time that by this date the parties shall attempt to enter harmonious settlement, no such settlement has been reached. We are satisfied that this writ petition need not be kept pending indefinitely before this Court. 10. In the result, a) this writ petition is allowed. b)We accept the statement of the alleged detenue, an adult major woman aged above 18 years that she does not want to return along with respondents 4 to 6, who had brought her to court on 25/6/2010. We respect her decisional autonomy. W.P.CRL. 239/2010 5 c)We have informed the alleged detenue that she is at liberty to persue whatever course she thinks is best. She stated before us that she wants to leave along with the petitioner and get married to him in accordance with law. The petitioner also submits that he wants to have the alleged detenue with him and to get married to her. We just record those submissions of the petitioner and the alleged detenue. d). We further take note of the fact that the father and mother of the petitioner are present and they agree that they are willing to agree to the marriage between their son, the petitioner, and the alleged detenue Ruslath. Those submissions of the father and mother of the petitioner are also recorded hereby. 11. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the W.P.CRL. 239/2010 6 petitioner expresses an apprehension that respondents 4 to 6 may cause harassment and difficulties to the petitioner and the alleged detenue. The learned Government Pleader submits that if there is any such problem, the petitioner and the alleged detenue can complain to the second respondent/third respondent, who shall take necessary steps in this regard. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE W.P.CRL. 239/2010 7