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. 464 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LENIN BOSE, S/O.SUBASH CHANDRAN, PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.ENKAKKAD, WADAKKANCHERRY, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU POLICE STATION, P.O.NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690504. 3. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ELLAMULLA ILLAM, PULIMEL, P.O.PATTOOR-690529, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. RENUKA, W/O.SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, ELLAMULLA ILLAM, PULIMEL, P.O.PATTOOR-690529 KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR FOR R4-5 SRI.P.ARAVIND FOR R4-5 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. 464 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the matter resting with our order dated 2/12/10. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the alleged detenue and the petitioner are personally present. With the blessings of their parents, their marriage has already taken place at the Sreekrishna Temple, Guruvayur, on 14/12/10. Certificate of marriage No.2518/10 dated 14/12/10 issued by the Local Registrar of Marriages of the Guruvayur Municipality under the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules is produced. We are satisfied that no further directions are now W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010 -: 2 :- necessary in the matter. 3. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as agreed in view of the further developments that have taken place after the filing of the writ petition. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010 -: 3 :- R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 ORDER Basant,J. The petitioner - a young man aged 24 years, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce `Sreerekha' - a young woman aged 21 years (date of birth - 28/5/90), a college mate of his, who, he alleged, was under the illegal detention and confinement of respondents 4 and 5 - the parents of the said Sreerekha, the alleged detenue. 2. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue and the petitioner were students of the Karpagam Arts & Science College at Coimbatore during 2007-2010. They had fallen in love. They had decided to get married. Their decision to get married was not approved by respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner and the alleged detenue belong to different W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010 -: 4 :- communities - both being Hindus. The parents of the alleged detenue were, it was alleged, illegally detaining and confining the alleged detenue. It was, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 26/11/10. 3. This petition came up for hearing on 26/11/10. We were not satisfied that there was any element of illegal confinement or detention which could be spelt out from the facts narrated. However, we wanted the learned Government Pleader to take instructions. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, informed us that the police had recorded the statement of the alleged detenue and the statement points to the truth of the assertions of the petitioner. This writ petition was accordingly admitted on 29/11/10 and the case was posted to this date. 4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. Both his parents are present. He is represented by his counsel. 5. Respondents 4 and 5 have appeared before this Court. They are represented by a counsel. Along with respondents 4 and 5, the alleged detenue has also come to Court. 6. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010 -: 5 :- custody of respondents 4 and 5. who are allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the Chamber without any opportunity for respondents 4 and 5 to interact with her. We accepted the request of the alleged deteneue and permitted the petitioner to interact with her. They thus had opportunity to interact during pre-lunch session. 7. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with her in the presence of respondents 4 and 5 and their counsel. Subsequently, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of her parents, the petitioner, his parents and also the counsel for both sides. The learned Government Pleader was also present. 8. We had requested the counsel to try to ascertain whether there is any avenue for harmonious settlement. In our interactions with the alleged detenue, the alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she wants to get married to the petitioner. She stated before us that in the interactions which proceeded her parents had agreed to permit her to enter matrimony with the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 and their W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010 -: 6 :- counsel agree that they have no go but to resign to the desire of the alleged detenue. They are now willing to give her in marriage to the petitioner. The petitioner stated before us that he is willing to marry the alleged detenue. His parents have also come to Court and confirmed that they approve the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue and they are willing to accept the alleged detenue as their daughter-in-law. 9. The parties agree and accordingly we issue the following directions: (i) The alleged detenue shall today return from Court along with her parents i.e., respondents 4 and 5. (ii) It is agreed by all concerned that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall be solemnized within a period of 15 days at Guruvayoor Temple and thereafter the alleged detenue shall be permitted to live along with the petitioner as his wife. 10. We do accordingly post this case to 20/12/10. On that day the petitioner and the alleged detenue shall appear before us and shall produce before us certificate to show solemnization of their marriage and registration of the same W.P.(Cri) No. 464 of 2010 -: 7 :- under the Kerala Registration of the Marriages (Common) Rules. 11. Call this petition again on 20/12/10. R. BASANT (Judge) K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/