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 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 464 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUKUMARAN, S/O.RAMAN, KALLICHOLA HOUSE, CHERUMUNDASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHORNUR. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANKARA, PALAKKAD. ALL REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4. SHAFEEQ, S/O.BASHEER HAJI, ANJILAKADAVATH HOUSE, NAGARIPURAM, PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD. 5. KRISHNAN KUTTY, MALAMPALLA HOUSE, MANNUR (PO), PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.464 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November 2009 J U D G M E N T 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 his daughter-in-law Prameela, wife of his son Balakrishnan and daughter of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the marriage between Balakrishnan, his son and Prameela, the alleged detenue took place on 08/02/2009 in accordance with the customary and religious rites. The son of the petitioner is employed abroad. He left for his place of employment in Sharjah on 05/04/2009. Prameela, the alleged detenue was a student for the degree course in Sandeepani College, Pathiripala. After her marriage, she continued her studies. To facilitate continuation of her studies, she had gone back to her parental home. 2. According to the petitioner, he came to know on 17/10/2009 that his daughter-in-law, the alleged detenue was having immoral relationship with the 4th respondent, whose name is shown as Shafeek, S/o.Basheer Haji in that petition. In W.P.Crl No.464/09 2 court, it is now agreed by all concerned that his name is Shabeer, S/o.Basheer Haji and not Shafeeq. The registry shall carry out the said correction on the basis of this suo motu direction issued by this court, as agreed by all concerned. 3. According to the petitioner, police had intervened in the dispute and he came to know that the alleged detenue was missing from 19/10/2009. Thereafter, her whereabouts were not known. The 5th respondent was not able to give the petitioner any details about the whereabouts of the alleged detenue. In these circumstances, the petitioner apprehended that his daughter-in-law was being illegally detained by the 4th respondent herein. He wanted this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his daughter-in- law, the alleged detenue from the illegal detention and custody of the 4th respondent. Respondents 1 to 3 are police officials. 4th respondent, as stated earlier, is the person who was allegedly detaining the alleged detenue illegally and the 5th respondent is the father of the alleged detenue. 4. This petition was filed on 11/11/2009. It was admitted on 12/11/2009. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date. W.P.Crl No.464/09 3 5. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. The 5th respondent has entered appearance. He is represented by a counsel. The 4th respondent has come to court. The alleged detenue has been brought to court by the police. 6. We interacted with the alleged detenue in the open court. We wanted her to be left alone for sometime to take an independent and uninfluenced decision and to convey her response to us later. The petitioner and the 5th respondent prayed for opportunity to interact with the alleged detenue and they were both permitted to interact with her for half an hour separately. 7. Thereafter, the alleged detenue was left alone till we interacted with her after lunch recess at 1.45 p.m. We ascertained her response. She has a very pathetic version to advance. According to her, she and the 4th respondent Shabeer were students from school days and had fallen in love. Her marriage with Balakrishnan, son of the petitioner, was arranged by the parents of both. She was not willing for such a marriage. She had raised her objections; but ignoring her objections and under the threat that her mother will commit suicide if she did W.P.Crl No.464/09 4 not agree for the marriage, she was compelled to undergo a form of marriage with Balakrishnan, the son of the petitioner. According to her, she had, even prior to her marriage, informed Balakrishnan about her unwillingness to get married; but he also adamantly insisted that the marriage must take place. After marriage, she was taken to the house of her husband Balakrishnan. There also, the relationship was very strained. She continued to attend the college. She returned to her parental home. At the time when her marriage took place, Shabeer, the 4th respondent was not available in India. He had gone abroad. After he returned, she was in contact with the said Shabeer, the 4th respondent. They want to get married. She does not want to continue the relationship with Balakrishnan. The relationship between her and the 4th respondent was not appreciated by her relatives and the local people. Complaints were made before the police. The police had intervened. She stuck to her stand that she does not want to continue her relationship with Balakrishnan and wants to join the 4th respondent. Accordingly, she was left at the house of the 4th respondent by her relatives. The 4th respondent and his parents had given protection to her. She had decided to embrace Islam W.P.Crl No.464/09 5 and was left at Mounathul Islam Sabha at Ponnani, Malappuram District as desired by her. She is undergoing religious education there. 8. While so, on coming to know of this case, she has come to this court from the said institution as directed by the police and the 4th respondent. It is accordingly that she has come before court. She does not want to resume the marital relationship with Balakrishnan, the son of the petitioner. She wants to marry the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has agreed to marry her. After necessary steps are taken to get her marriage with Balakrishnan, the son of the petitioner, dissolved or avoided in accordance with law, she wants to marry the 4th respondent. Till then, she does not want to return with the petitioner or the 5th respondent. She wants to go back to Mounathul Islam Sabha to continue her religious education and thereafter when the time is opportune and the legal hurdles are overcome, she wants to marry the 4th respondent. 9. The petitioner, after his interaction with the alleged detenue, is now convinced that she is not under illegal detention or confinement of the 4th respondent and, in these circumstances, the petitioner and his counsel submit that the W.P.Crl No.464/09 6 petitioner does not seek any further directions in this writ petition. Necessary steps shall be taken by the petitioner and his son to get the marriage avoided or dissolved. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that this petition can now be closed and dismissed recording the events that have taken place. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent may be directed to co-operate with the petitioner and his son in their attempt to get their marriage avoided and dissolved. 10. The 5th respondent, who is represented by his counsel, submits that he is satisfied that his daughter is not under the illegal confinement or detention of the 4th respondent or anyone else. He makes it clear that he does not now want to take back the alleged detenue along with him. She is an adult woman and can be permitted to pursue whatever course she thinks is correct, submits the 5th respondent. The 4th respondent has appeared before us. He is not represented by a counsel. He, like the alleged detenue, asserts that they are in love and that they want to get married now. The 4th respondent submits that marriage will take place only after the requisite legal hurdles are overcome and the 4th respondent has no objection against the W.P.Crl No.464/09 7 alleged detenue continuing in the Mounathul Islam Sabha to continue her religious education. He submits before court that after the legal hurdles are clear, he will marry the alleged detenue and that till then, he is willing to afford adequate protection and safety for her. 11. The alleged detenue, who has now attained majority - she having been born on 07/12/1989, sticks to her stand before us that she is not under the illegal detention or confinement of anyone, that she wants to return to the Mounathul Islam Sabha to continue and complete her religious education and that she wants to get married to the 4th respondent after the legal hurdles are overcome. 12. We have interacted with all parties separately and together. A harmonious settlement of the dispute does not appear to be possible. The alleged detenue, the 5th respondent as also the 4th respondent submit that they shall co-operate with the petitioner and his son Balakrishnan to get the marriage between the alleged detenue and the said Balakrishnan avoided/dissolved in accordance with law. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are not really concerned with the morality of W.P.Crl No.464/09 8 the stand taken by the parties. We are primarily concerned only with the question whether there is any illegal detention or confinement of the alleged detenue. All concerned including the alleged detenue now accept and agree that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition and that this writ petition can be closed and dismissed. 13. One question remains. What shall the alleged detenue do after she leaves this court? We make it clear that we do not want to suggest any course to her. She is an adult woman and in the given situation, she will have to take decisions affecting herself. But we take note of the submission of the alleged detenue that she wants to return to Mounathul Islam Sabha in the company of the 4th respondent and continue her religious education there. The alleged detenue asserts that her decision to embrace Islam is her voluntary and personal decision and she has not been compelled or coerced by anyone to agree to a conversion. Obviously, she has taken the decision to convert in her anxiety to eventually get married to the 4th respondent and seek his protection until such marriage takes place. We record W.P.Crl No.464/09 9 that she and the 4th respondent assert before us that they want to get married when the legal hurdles are clear. We record their submissions that until such marriage takes place, the alleged detenue, who has neither her parents nor her parents-in-law to support her now, will be given support and security by the 4th respondent. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants this court to ascertain from the alleged detenue whether she has any complaint against the petitioner and his son, that is her husband, the alleged detenue states that she does not now want to make any complaint against the petitioner and his son that is her husband. 15. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.Crl No.464/09 10 W.P.Crl No.464/09 11 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009