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 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 240 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 25 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKANDY HOUSE, POOKALATHUR, P.O.PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 126. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. 3. SHRI.MUHAMMED.T.K.ALIAS CHERIYAPPU, THEKKEYIL HOUSE, MUNNAMPADY, THRIPANCHY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 641. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY FOR R3 SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 240 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Ms. Reena – an adult major woman, who, he apprehended, was being illegally detained by the 3rd respondent – the father of the alleged detenue. According to the petitioner, he has an intimate relationship with the alleged detenue Reena and they had agreed to get married. Her father and other relatives, who did not approve of such relationship, are illegally detaining and confining the alleged detenue and torturing her mentally, he complained. 2. This writ petition was admitted. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Today, when the matter came up for W.P.(Cri) No. 240 of 2009-S -: 2 :- hearing, the 3rd respondent, along with the alleged detenue Reena, has appeared before this Court. They are represented by a counsel. The petitioner is present. He is also represented by a counsel. 3. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the 3rd respondent, we permitted the alleged detenue to be alone in the Chamber and did not grant an opportunity for any concerned person to interact with her. At 1.45 p.m. we interacted with her in the Chamber. We ascertained her response in the course of such interaction. Later, in the presence of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and their counsel as also the learned Government Pleader, we ascertained the response of the alleged detenue. 4. She asserts that she is above 18 years old, she having been born on 28/5/91. In response to a specific query, she asserted that she was not under any confinement or detention. She is now attending a religious institution at Kayamkulam and this, she asserts, is on the basis of her own decision. She is not illegally detained or confined there. To a pointed query put by us as to whom she wants to go with if permitted by this Court, she asserts that she now wants to go with her father – the 3rd respondent. When we probed further, the alleged detenue states that now wants to complete her education. She is W.P.(Cri) No. 240 of 2009-S -: 3 :- hopeful of getting admission to the B.D.S. Course and the question of her marriage will be decided by her after she completes her studies. 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any confinement or detention by any one. No further directions are necessary in this writ petition, we are satisfied. 6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The alleged detenue Ms. Reena is permitted to leave this Court along with her father – the 3rd respondent, as desired by her. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge