IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 396 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIVARAMAN M., MEENATHETHIL HOUSE, MALAMELCODE, CHEPPAD MUTTOM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) SRI.H.JAWHAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.688001 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION.688007 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION.690572 5. SUBI BABU, S/O.BABU, KURISINKAL HOUSE, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA.690106 6. BABU, KURISINKAL HOUSE, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA.690106 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI K J MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) No.396 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 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, Thampuru Sivaraman, aged 25 years (date of birth - 14.3.1985). According to the petitioner, his adult daughter was residing with him and she is missing from 4.10.2010. Efforts made by the petitioner to trace his daughter were allegedly in vain. Complaints made to the police also was not fruitful. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 6.10.2010. 2. This petition was admitted on 7.10.2010 and notice was ordered to the respondents. Today when the case is called, the petitioner has come to the Court. Along with him, his wife and eldest son have also come to the Court. The petitioner is represented by his counsel. Respondents 5 and 6 have also come to Court. They are represented by their counsel. Along with them the W.P.(Crl.) No.396 of 2010 2 alleged detenue has also come to the Court. 3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with respondents 5 and 6, who allegedly are detaining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the chamber with opportunity for no one to influence her. We permitted the petitioner, his wife and their son to interact with the alleged detenue. During the pre - lunch session, the petitioner, his wife and their son thus had interactions with the alleged detenue. 4. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner, his wife and son. Later we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of respondents 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 5. The alleged detenue and the fifth respondent submit before us that they have been in love for a long period of time. They had decided to get married. Accordingly the alleged detenue had joined the fifth respondent on 4.10.2010. She had got converted to Christianity on 6.10.2010. She was baptised on that date. Her W.P.(Crl.) No.396 of 2010 3 marriage with the fifth respondent had taken place on 6.10.2010. Their marriage was registered with Mavelikkara Municipality under Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common Rules), 2008. In support of this assertion, they have produced before the Court baptism certificate-Sl. No.174 dated 11.10.2010 and marriage certificate sl.No.234 dated 11.10.2010 issued by the Vicar, St. Marys Orthodox Cathedral, Puthiacavu, Mavelikkara. Certificate of marriage No.637/2010 dated 12.10.2010 issued by the Registrar of Marriages, Mavelikkara Municipality to confirm that their marriage had taken place on 6.10.2010 is also produced by the alleged detenue and the fifth respondent. The alleged detenue and the fifth respondent submit they have been legally married and request that they may be permitted to leave together from the Court. The sixth respondent submits that he accepts the marriage between his son, the fifth respondent and the alleged detenue and that he is willing to treat them as his son and his son's legally wedded wife. The married couple are now residing with the sixth respondent, it is submitted. W.P.(Crl.) No.396 of 2010 4 6. We tried to explore the possibilities of a harmonious settlement. The petitioner, his wife and their son are unable to accept the marriage between the fifth respondent and alleged detenue. They agree that the alleged detenue and the fifth respondent can now be permitted to leave the court together. As requested by them copies of certificates of marriage and baptism certificate are handed over to them by the alleged detenue and fifth respondent. The alleged detenue stated that some of her certificates/ records are available with their parents. They have brought all such certificates and all the certificates are handed over by the petitioner to the alleged detenue in our presence. A mobile phone, ATM card and an amount of 160/-, which is available in the cover in which the ATM card is kept are also returned. An amount of Rs.10,000/- which is said to be due from the son of the petitioner to the fifth respondent is also returned to the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue and the fifth respondent had reservation against accepting the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. But ultimately they have been persuaded to receive that amount. 7. It is submitted that the alleged detenue has left a signed W.P.(Crl.) No.396 of 2010 5 blank paper with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking instructions from the petitioner, submits that while it is true that such paper was left by the alleged detenue, that has been destroyed and is not now available to be returned. We record that submission. 8. The alleged detenue wants to apply for a passport, so that she can join her husband, fifth respondent at his place of employment abroad. To enable her to apply for the passport, the alleged detenue wants a copy of the ration card issued to the petitioner and family. That is not readily available. It is agreed that the petitioner shall hand over the photocopy of the ration card with name of the alleged detenue in it to the alleged detenue at the Kareelakulangara Police Station at 10.a.m. on 16.10.2010. The learned Government Pleader undertakes to instruct the Kareelakulangara police station to ensure that the copy of the ration card is so handed over against proper acknowledgment to be given by the alleged detenue to the petitioner. 9. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue W.P.(Crl.) No.396 of 2010 6 is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that, the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this Writ petition. 10. We record the fact that the petitioner, his wife and their son did not remain in the chamber when fifth and sixth respondents were requested to come to the chamber. They did not want to interact with respondents 5 and 6 in the environment of the court now. 11. In the result: i) This writ petition is dismissed. ii) The alleged detenue Thampuru Sivaraman alias, Susan is permitted to leave the Court along with respondents 5 and 6, as desired by her. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/