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 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 1204 of 2009(S) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPCR.370/2009 Dated 16/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WP(CRL.) -------------------------------------------- T.D.SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT THOTTUMGAL HOUSE, KUMARAKAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS W.P.(CRL.) ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KUMARAKAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE C.I. OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. ABHILASH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ANIYAN, THAITHARA HOUSE, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 1204 of 2009 in W.P.(Cri) No.370 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 ORDER Basant,J. By judgment dated 16/9/09, this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his daughter - Dhanu Suresh. The operative portion of the said judgment in para-11 reads thus: “11. In the result, a) This writ petition is dismissed. b) The alleged detenue Dhanu Suresh is permitted to return from court, as desired by her, along with the 5th respondent, with whom she has come to court today and with whom she is shown to have entered matrimony. (c) It is directed that the case shall be called again on 09/11/2009. On that date, the parties shall appear. The alleged detenue and the 5th respondent shall appear and produce the certificate of marriage issued under the Special Marriage Act with a copy to be furnished to R.P. No. 1204 of 2009 -: 2 :- the petitioner herein. On that day, parties shall report to the court that the personal belongings of the alleged detenue have all been handed over, as already agreed.” 2. On that date i.e., 16/9/09, the alleged detenue - Dhanu Suresh, as desired by her, left the Court along with the 5th respondent. The contention of the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent that they have got married legally was taken note of; but there was a direction that the certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act must be produced on 9/11/09 considering the plea raised by the petitioner herein. 3. Later, it turned out that the alleged detenue had returned to the petitioner and did not want to continue along with the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the alleged detenue - Dhanu Suresh, is now living with the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that the direction (c) extracted above may be recalled after reviewing the judgment dated 16/9/09. 4. We have subsequently had occasion to interact with the alleged detenue. She stated emphatically and categorically before us that she does not want to live with the 5th respondent and, in these circumstances, she is unwilling to get a marriage R.P. No. 1204 of 2009 -: 3 :- performed or registered under the Special Marriage Act. 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the direction (c) extracted above deserves to be recalled after reviewing the judgment dated 16/9/09. The request of the petitioner which is endorsed by the alleged detenue deserves to be accepted. 6. We do note that the 5th respondent has a case that valid marriage has already taken place between the alleged detenue and himself and that the alleged detenue is changing her version now only at the instance of her parents. We are of the opinion that we need not go into that question in any greater depth in this writ petition. We need only mention that the parties shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings and seek appropriate relief from the appropriate courts about their marital status if such proceedings are found to be necessary. We had permitted the alleged detenue to leave the Court along with the 5th respondent as desired by her and had granted time to the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent to produce the certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act. Now it is evident that the alleged detenue does not want to continue with the 5th respondent and has already returned to her parents. In these circumstances, the direction issued by us enabling the R.P. No. 1204 of 2009 -: 4 :- alleged detenue and the 5th respondent to get their marriage solemnised/registered under the Special Marriage Act and to produce the certificate of marriage can be recalled. This review petition can be allowed to that limited extent without expressing any opinion on the contentious issue regarding the validity of the alleged marriage between the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent which is said to have taken place on 24/8/09. 7. In the result: (a) This review petition is allowed. (b) The direction (c) in para-11 of our judgment dated 16/9/09 is recalled. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge