IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 471 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STANLEY,S/O.BENCILIN,AGED 23 YEARS, R/AT USHUS,HOUSE NI.129,,VADAKKUM BHAGOM, RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION,KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,EAST POLICE STATION,KOLLAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. AJIKUTTAN,S/O.ELIVI GAKE VARGHESE, VADAKKETHALACKAL,MEPPURATHU HOUSE,NIRA NAGAR, 61 A,NALANCHIRA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 5. SIVIKKUTTAN,S/O.ELIVI GAKE VARGHESE, VADAKKETHALACKAL,MEPPURATHU HOUSE, NIRA NAGAR, 61 A, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. 6. VARGHESE,ROBIN VILLA,PUNTHALA PO, VENMANI,PANTHALAM,PAHANMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner, a young man aged about 23 years, has come to this Court with this petition with a prayer for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce `Roshan', a young woman aged about 23 years (date of birth - 15/11/87). She has completed her B.Sc. Nursing Course. The final examination is not over yet. The petitioner and the said Roshan were in love. They had decided to get married. They had entered into an agreement of marriage dated 13/4/09 (copy produced as Ext.P1). 2. To cut a long story short, the petitioner contended that the alleged detenue Roshan, whom he described as his wife, is under the illegal detention of her relatives. The 6th respondent W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010 -: 2 :- is the father of the alleged detenue. Respondents 4 and 5 are relatives of the alleged detenue. The petitioner contended that she was under illegal detention and confinement against her wishes. 3. This petition was filed on 1/12/10. It was admitted on 2/12/10. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date. 4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The 6th respondent has come to Court along with his wife Mrs. Daisy Varghese. The 6th respondent is represented by a counsel. Respondents 4 and 5 have not come to Court. They are also represented by the counsel for the 6th respondent. 5. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the company of the 6th respondent, who is allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with no opportunity for the 6th respondent and his wife to influence the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue stated before us that she wants to interact with the petitioner. Permission was hence given to her to interact with the petitioner. They had interactions during the pre-lunch session. 6. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010 -: 3 :- detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of the petitioner. The maternal grandmother of the petitioner, sister of the petitioner and her husband are also present before Court. 7. The alleged detenue narrated her tale of woes before us. We do not think it necessary to narrate and reiterate the same. She unambiguously stated before us that she had voluntarily entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the petitioner; that she and the petitioner were known to each other for a period of about 3 ½ years by now; that they had decided to get married; that her parents and the relatives do not approve of her relationship with the petitioner; but notwithstanding their disagreement and opposition she now wants to go with the petitioner and get married to him. She did not, of course, make any specific allegation or request for any action against the persons responsible for her alleged woes. She emphatically asserted that she wants to leave this Court along with the petitioner. 8. The parents of the alleged detenue stated before us that if the alleged detenue wants to go with the petitioner and get married to him, they have no objection to that course. They have not willing to give her in marriage to the petitioner. But W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010 -: 4 :- they are not willing to specify any period within which they will so give her in marriage to the petitioner. In short, the parents of the alleged detenue stated that the alleged detenue can be sent along with the petitioner now, if that is her desire. 9. In our interactions with the maternal grandmother of the petitioner (Mrs. M.Janet) and the sister of the alleged detenue and her husband, they stated that they, as also the parents of the petitioner, accept the alleged detenue as their daughter-in- law. She shall be properly looked after. All in the family are willing to accept the alleged detenue as the wife of the petitioner. 10. At the end of the discussions, though the parents of the alleged detenue are not able to accept the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue, they also accept that the alleged detenue can be permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner and his relatives. Parties agree and accordingly we issue the following directions: (i) The alleged detenue is permitted to leave this Court along with the petitioner, his maternal grandmother Janet, his sister and her husband, as desired by her. (ii) It is agreed that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue in accordance with the provisions of the W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010 -: 5 :- Special Marriage Act shall be solemnized/registered at the earliest and certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act shall be produced before this Court on the next date of posting. (iii) It is accepted that Ext.P1 is not sufficient to create a legal and valid relationship of marriage and it is agreed by the petitioner, the alleged detenue, the grandmother of the alleged detenue, and the sister and brother-in-law of the alleged detenue that the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall not be permitted to live as husband and wife till their marriage is solemnized and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. (iv) They assert and undertake before us that the alleged detenue shall be accommodated at the house of the maternal aunt of the petitioner - Mrs.Jaya at Kureepuzha, Kollam. Only after the marriage is solemnized and registered, she shall be permitted to cohabit along with the petitioner as his wife, undertake all concerned. (v) The parents of the alleged detenue agree that the passport of the alleged detenue, her books and other personal articles belonging to her shall be handed over to the alleged detenue at the office of the counsel for the 6th respondent Sri. V. W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010 -: 6 :- Philip Mathews at Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam, against proper acknowledgment at 10 a.m. on 11/12/10. (vi) It is agreed that the case can be called again on 24/1/11 on which day the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall appear before this Court along with the certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act. A copy of the same shall also be produced on that day before us for being handed over to the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. Call on 24/1/201. 11. This writ petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. 12. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy/ P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No. 471 of 2010 -: 7 :-