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 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 394 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMED YAHYA, S/O.KUNHALASSAN, AGED 22 YEARS, THUPPILIKKAT HOUSE, PARAPPUR NORTH, VENGARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 304. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, MAVULLATHIL HOUSE, MOKERI P.O., VIA KAKKATTIL, 673516. 2. SAFIYA, MAVULLATHIL HOUSE, MOKERI P.O., VIA KAKKATTIL, 673516. 3. ABDUL MAJEED, MAVULLATHIL HOUSE, MOKERI P.O., VIA KAKKATTIL, 673516. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIYADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 5. MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 6. EMBASSY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECOND SECRETARY (CONSULAR WING), B -1, DIPLOMATIC QUARTERS, P.O.BOX NO.94387, RIYADH, 11693, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA. BY SR. G.P. SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R5-6 SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R3 SMT.M.SHAJNA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 394 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 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 Ms. Sharmina - a young woman aged above 20 years (date of birth - 21/4/90). 2. The petitioner is a young man aged 22 years. The alleged detenue Sharmina is his college mate - both being students of different semester for B.Tech. Course in the K.M.C.T. College of Engineering, Mukkam. According to the petitioner, they know each other. They have fallen in love. They have decided to get married and on coming to know of the relationship between him and the alleged detenue, the parents of the alleged detenue have discontinued her education in the W.P.(Cri) No. 394 of 2010 -: 2 :- College and had taken her away to the place of employment of the father of the alleged detenue abroad. She was being illegally detained and confined there. According to the petitioner, he had received information from the alleged detenue over the telephone and through E-mail that she was being illegally confined, detained and put to harassment. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 5/10/10. 3. This petition was admitted on 6/10/10. The case was adjourned from time to time. Respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance through counsel. They offered to produce the alleged detenue before this Court today. Accordingly, the case was posted to this date. 4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by a counsel. The 3rd respondent is personally present. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with the 3rd respondent. 5. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 3rd respondent who, along with respondents 1 and 2, are allegedly detaining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for any one W.P.(Cri) No. 394 of 2010 -: 3 :- to interact with her or influence her decision. To a specific query put by us, the alleged detenue stated that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. 6. The alleged detenue was thus permitted to remain alone in the Chamber during the pre-lunch session. After the lunch recess we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we interacted with the petitioner and the alleged detenue in the presence of the 3rd respondent also. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader were also present. Initially we did think that the alleged detenue was in great mental strain and trauma. We offered to the alleged detenue further time for 7 days during which period she can be accommodated either in a neutral venue or along with the 3rd respondent so that she can convey to us her final response after necessary forethought. The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she does not want to return along with the petitioner and that she wants to return along with the 3rd respondent. She is willing to abide by the decisions of her parents. It is true that she and the petitioner were known to each other as students in the same College. But she states that W.P.(Cri) No. 394 of 2010 -: 4 :- she does not want to defy the wishes of her parents and go with the petitioner. She was given sufficient time. She asserted that she does not want any further time to take a decision. 7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the response of the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue in this case is aged above 20 years and 6 months. She is educated. She has completed her 3rd semester B.Tech. Course. We respect her decisional autonomy. We accept her decision that she wants to return along with the 3rd respondent and does not want to go with the petitioner. 8. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) We permit the alleged detenue Sharmina to return from this Court along with her uncle - the 3rd respondent herein. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge