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. 395 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIPIN .V, S/O.VIDYADHARAN,AGED 26, MANNAMPALLIL HOUSE,KAINAKARI PO,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPARVATH POLICE STATION,AGRA.U.P.STATE 2. DIG/SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AGRA, U.P.STATE. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PATTINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. MOHANLAL SONI FATHER OF URMILA, 289-A,SURILLOO COLONY,MAVU ROAD, KANTHARI , AGRA, U.P.STATE. 5. SIVAKUMARI,W/O. MOHANLAL SONI, OF DO. DO. 6. C.I. OF POLICE, PULIMKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. R1` TO 3 & R6 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR 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.(Crl.) No. 395 2010 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Urmila Soni, a young woman aged 26 years, who, according to the petitioner, is his wife. She was born on 26.6.1984. She is a IInd year B.A. student. Their marriage took place in accordance with Hindu Religious rites on 28.5.2010. Their marriage has been registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. The petitioner was employed at Agra. The alleged detenue Urmila belongs to Agra. They fell in love there. They came to Kerala to get married. It is thereafter that their marriage was solemnised on 28.5.2010. W.P.(Crl.) No. 395 2010 2 2. According to the petitioner, after some days of residence together the alleged detenue, his wife, was taken away by respondents 4 and 5, the parents of the alleged detenue. Thereafter she, it was alleged, was being illegally detained and confined by her parents. The attempt of the petitioner to trace the alleged detenue did not succeed and it is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 6.10.2010. 3. This petition was admitted on 7.10.2010. Orders were issued from time to time. The case stood posted to this date for appearance of the alleged detenue. 4. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Respondents 4 and 5 are represented by a counsel. The 4th respondent has appeared in person. It is submitted that the police had gone to Agra and had traced the alleged detenue and brought her to this Court. 5. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone during the pre-lunch session. Thereafter we interacted with the alleged detenue W.P.(Crl.) No. 395 2010 3 after the lunch recess. We interacted with her alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader were also present. The 4th respondent was also present. 6. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she wants to return from Court along with the 4th respondent. She does not want to go along with the petitioner. To a specific query by us, the alleged detenue states that she actually wants to secure divorce from the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that this petition has been filed suppressing truth and without revealing to the court all necessary facts. The parties had come to an agreement earlier. That agreement has not been worked. However, parties are continuing the efforts for a harmonious settlement of all their disputes. 8. In a petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the response of the alleged detenue. We interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. We permitted the W.P.(Crl.) No. 395 2010 4 alleged detenue and the petitioner to interact with each other alone for some time before we finally took up the matter. We are satisfied from the response of the alleged detenue that she does not want to go with the petitioner. She is not under any illegal detention or confinement, we are convinced. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further directions need be issued by us invoking our extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. 9. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed. b) We permit the alleged detenue, Urmila Soni, to return from Court along with the 4th respondent, as desired by her. (R.BASANT) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm