IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 318 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SUDHARSANAN, S/O. ARJUNAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, PARVATHIPURAM GRAMAM, ATTINGAL - 695 101. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, P.O.ATTINGAL - 695 101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, P.O.ATTINGAL - 695 101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, P.O.ATTINGAL - 695 101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SUMESH K., S/O. KANDANKUTTY, PUDUPARIYARAM P.O. - 678 733, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.21.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DT.22.6.2011 IN CRIME NO.908/2011 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.23.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. -TRUE COPY- P.S.TO JUDGE. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Surendra Mohan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(Crl.).No.318 of 2011-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Following earlier orders, the parents of the alleged detenue are present. We interacted with them in the morning as discernible from our earlier order issued today. We also interacted with the alleged detenue and the parents after lunch. The parents and the daughter went for lunch together. The girl has agreed to go with the parents and she has been appropriately advised about the affairs of the child that she has through Priji. She expressed a desire to separate the matrimonial tie with Priji. We have advised her that these are matters on which she could deliberate for herself taking adequate caution and come to her own conclusion. The WPCR318/11 -: 2 :- parents have expressed that they would not pressurize the alleged detenue Divya to any sort of situation. We find that the parents of the alleged detenue have no complaint about Priji. In fact, they would say that it was he who provided funds for the education of the alleged detenue for MCA. We do not further express anything on that. 2.We are sure that the alleged detenue in the company of her parents and her child will appropriately think and come to her own conclusion. We are satisfied that she is not under illegal detention. 3.We are, however, not inclined to give any seal of approval to support her residence in hostel in Coimbatore, may be or may not be, at the expense of Sumesh so long as the matrimonial tie between Priji and Divya continues. It would not be for the Court to ratify any such relationship between the alleged detenue and Sumesh. WPCR318/11 -: 3 :- With the aforesaid, we order that the police authorities will provide adequate support for the alleged detenue to accompany her parents home. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. K.Surendra Mohan, Judge. Sha/1107