IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 199 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAUL VINCENT, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. P.C. LONAPPAN, PELLISSERY HOUSE, ANNANAD.P.O, CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY, CHALAKKUDY. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR. 6. M.K. SOMAN, 12/762-F, MAMBULLY, PUZHUVIL.P.O, CHAZHOOR PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 564. 7. M.V. DOLLY, W/O.M.K. SOMAN, 12/762-F, MAMBULLY, PUZHUVIL.P.O, CHAZHOOR PANCHAYATH THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 564. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL FOR R7 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL FOR R-6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.199 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier orders resting with the order dated 14/6/2010. 2. 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.Remya, aged 23 years (date of birth : 10/05/1987). She as well as the petitioner are holders of B.E.degree. They were college mates. After the college, Remya had secured employment in the K.S.E.B for a short period. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and the alleged detenue Ms.Remya were in love and have got married on 27/5/2010, their marriage having been solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. They belong to different religions. The petitioner is a Christian by religion; whereas Ms.Remya the alleged detenue is a Hindu by religion. According to the petitioner, Ms.Remya was being illegally detained and confined by respondents 6 and 7, her father and mother respectively. W.P.(Crl) No.199/10 : 2 : 2. This petition was filed on 31/5/2010. It was admitted on 01/06/2010. Thereafter, the matter was posted to 07/06/2010, 11/6/2010 and 14/6/2010. The solemnisation and registration of the marriage is not disputed. When the alleged detenue Ms.Remya was brought to Court on 14/6/2010, we found the alleged detenue to be in a state of absolute confusion. She prayed for some time to convey her response to us. It was accordingly that we permitted her to leave the Court along with her parents, with whom she had come to Court on 14/6/2010 and directed that she be brought to Court today. 3. Today when the case is called, the 6th respondent is not present. He has gone back to his place of employment abroad, it is submitted. The 7th respondent, along with the alleged detenue Remya has come to Court. The petitioner has also come to Court. Both the petitioner and the 7th respondent are represented by their counsel. We permitted the alleged detenue Remya to remain alone in the chamber until we interacted with her after lunch recess. In response to our queries in court, she stated that she does not want to speak to or interact with the petitioner. W.P.(Crl) No.199/10 : 3 : 4. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her mother, the 7th respondent. We subsequently interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for both sides and the learned Government Pleader were also present. As desired/agreed by them, the petitioner and the alleged detenue were permitted to have interactions without the presence of anyone else for some time. 5. The alleged detenue submits before us after such interactions (even earlier she said the same thing) that she wants to return from Court along with her parents. Her marriage with the petitioner does not have the approval of her parents and, in these circumstances, she wants to return along with her mother, the 7th respondent today, she submits. Our efforts to ensure that the petitioner and the alleged detenue harmoniously rejoin or atleast part as friends have not been successful. 6. The alleged detenue states that a ring and a mobile phone given to her by the petitioner are available with her and she seeks permission to return the same to the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, takes the stand that he has not given these articles to the alleged detenue with any intention of W.P.(Crl) No.199/10 : 4 : taking them back from her. He, therefore, does not want to receive the same. We record these statements of the parties. 7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue Ms.Remya is not under any illegal confinement or detention. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this petition. Parties can, of course, negotiate for a harmonious settlement or choose a decision by the Courts. We do not want to express any opinion on those aspects. Suffice it to say that, we find that the efforts made for a harmonious settlement of the disputes have not borne fruit at present. 8. In the result, a) This writ petition is dismissed. b) The alleged detenue Ms.Remya is permitted to leave the Court along with her mother, the 7th respondent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) W.P.(Crl) No.199/10 : 5 : jsr W.P.(Crl) No.199/10 : 6 : W.P.(Crl) No.199/10 : 7 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009