IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 78 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- FAROOK, S/O.MOHAMMED KASIM AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'FIROS MANZIL' KALAYAPURAM,BLOCK NO.108, KOLLAYIL PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALODE POLICE CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALODE POLICE STATION,PALODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. VISHNU, S/O.ANIRUDHAN 'ANEESH BHAVAN', KOLCHALUMMOODU,KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R6 SRI.AJITH MURALI FOR ALLEGED DETENUE THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders dated 03.03.2010, 18.03.2010, 31.03.2010, 25.05.2010 and 31.05.2010. 2. This petition for issue of a writ of a habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner with the grievance that his daughter Femina, a second year B.A student in a private tutorial college at Kadakkal by name `Campus', aged 20 years (date of birth 18.05.1990), is missing from 19.02.2010. A complaint was filed and a crime was registered by the Palode police as Crime No.118 of 2010. But no effective action was taken by the police. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner, who was employed abroad, rushed to his native place and came to this Court with this petition on 25.02.2010. 3. The alleged detenue was produced before this Court on 03.03.2010. Subsequently directions were issued by this W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 2 Court from time to time in an effort to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement. The allegation of the petitioner was that the alleged detenue was being illegally detained by the 6th respondent. However, we came to know in the course of the proceedings that the alleged detenue is not under illegal detention and confinement of anyone. She is in love with the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent, though he claims to be born on 24.05.1989, is said to have 15.01.1990 as his date of birth in all his official records. That means that as per the official records in his name he can get married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act only on and after 15.01.2011. The alleged detenue is a Muslim by religion, whereas the 6th respondent is a Hindu by religion. 4. We are deeply dissatisfied and frustrated to note that various efforts made by this Court to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement have not succeeded. We persuaded the alleged detenue to go with her parents on 25.05.2010 and 31.05.2010. The parents had virtually agreed to the desire of Femina to get married to the 6th respondent. Conditions were stipulated in the orders dated 25.05.2005 and 31.05.2005 to allay every reasonable apprehension of the alleged W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 3 detenue. On 31.05.2010, she had agreed to (or rather was persuaded to) go along with her parents. The case was posted to 14.06.2010 from 31.05.2010 and the alleged detenue had gone with her parents. But subsequently on 01.06.2010, the learned counsel for the alleged detenue prayed for an early posting on the ground that he was informed that the alleged detenue is assaulted and tortured by her parents. The learned Government Pleader also submitted on 01.06.2010 that he had received a message from the alleged detenue which reads as follows: “Sir, I am Femina. Please save me. Otherwise, they will kill me. Please help me.” 5. It was accordingly that the case was advanced and posted to this date with direction to produce the alleged detenue before Court today. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that according to the police, nothing untoward had taken place and such information in the message was totally false. The alleged detenue stated before us that she had sent the message to the learned Government Pleader. She had a complaint that she was assaulted and tortured in the jeep while they were returning from Court. Our enquiry with the woman police constable who accompanied her shows that there is no element of truth in this. W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 4 7. We are convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention of the 6th respondent. We are satisfied that it would be unnecessary and wasteful on our part to spend any further time in an attempt to work out a harmonious settlement. The petitioner also appears to be fed up now considering the sequence of events and the developments. The petitioner and his wife prayed before us that the alleged detenue may be directed to reside in any hostel at Trivandrum. She refused to accept this suggestion and insists that she may be permitted to reside in a hostel at Quilon. The petitioner is not willing to accept this course. 8. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement or detention. The petitioner alleged that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement and detention of the 6th respondent. We are convinced now that the alleged detenue is not under illegal detention or confinement of the 6th respondent. She is an adult major woman, she having crossed the age of 20 years now (date of birth - 18.05.1990). She has taken a voluntary and informed decision to go with the 6th respondent, who is said to be now aged above 21 years W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 5 (24.05.1989), though he has no documents admittedly to prove such date of birth of his and it is conceded that his date of birth as per the record is 15.01.1990. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to make any further attempt to harmoniously settle the disputes between the parties. We have sympathy and pity for the plight of the petitioner. But that cannot persuade us to issue any further directions against the wishes and desires of the alleged detenue, who appears to us to be firm and adamant in her decision. 9. The petitioner, his wife and Firoz, the elder brother of the alleged detenue, are present. They are represented by their counsel. The 6th respondent and his father are present before Court. They are represented by a counsel. The learned Government Pleader is also present. 10. Having convinced ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under detention, it is not necessary for us to issue any further directions. This Writ Petition can be dismissed. But a question arises as to what the alleged detenue would do after she goes out of this Court. She states that she wants to go with the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent, who is present in Court, and his father agree to take her along with them. The father of W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 6 the 6th respondent, Sri.Anirudhan, the 6th respondent and the alleged detenue undertake before Court that necessary steps shall be taken to get the marriage between the alleged detenue and the 6th respondent registered under the Special Marriage Act after the 6th respondent attains the age of 21 years. Till then, the 6th respondent, his father Anirudhan and the alleged detenue assure us that there shall be no cohabitation between the alleged detenue and the 6th respondent. It is submitted that till the marriage takes place, the alleged detenue will be accommodated along with the parents of the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent will take up residence elsewhere. Alternatively it is suggested that the alleged detenue shall be accommodated in some hostel until she and the 6th respondent can get married legally in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and can start cohabitation. We intend to issue no directions, but record these submissions of the alleged detenue and accept her request that she may be set at liberty by the Court with option to go with the 6th respondent and his father. 11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The alleged detenue, who has come to Court, is informed that she is at liberty and can choose whatever course she thinks is best. W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 7 Her response that she wants to go with the 6th respondent and his father is also taken note of and recorded. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 8 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. The alleged detenue has come to this Court along with the petitioner today. Her mother is also present. Subject to insignificant disputes between them, we note that the conditions W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 9 stipulated vide order dated 25.05.2010 are being observed and followed satisfactorily. We feel persuaded to direct that the arrangements as per order dated 25.05.2010 can continue now for some further period of time. All conditions stipulated as per order dated 25.05.2010 shall remain in force. The alleged detenue is permitted to go along with the petitioner and his wife. The case shall be called again on 14.06.2010. Appropriate further orders shall be issued on that day. 2. In the nature of the disagreements between the parties, we deem it necessary to make the following further stipulations: i) Telephone calls between the alleged detenue and the 6th respondent shall be between 11 a.m to 11.30 a.m, 2 p.m to 2.30 p.m, 9 p.m to 9.30 p.m. During this time, the alleged detenue shall be permitted to interact with the 6th respondent in confidentiality and privacy; ii) Certificates of the alleged detenue, which are said to be available in the house of the petitioner and which according to the alleged detenue could not be located by her, shall be traced by the petitioner and the same shall be produced before this Court on the next date of posting; W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 10 iii) There is admitted existence of some “Thakidu” in the room of the alleged detenue. The petitioner submits that this has always been there. There is disagreement between the parties on this score. It is agreed that the said “Thakidu” as also some Arabic writings in cloth which are available in the room shall be removed by the petitioner immediately. 3. Call this petition again on 14.06.2010. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl.) No.78 of 2010 11