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 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 309 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SREEKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, POTTAYIL VEEDU, POOVAR P.O. 2. BINU,S/O.SADASIVAN,KOVILAVILA VEEDU, PARASSALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA,PIN-695502. 3. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION,PIN-695502. 4. SAHADEVAN,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KALLUPILLAI,KADAIVILAPPUTHEN VEEDU, TEMPLE ROAD, PARASSALA.PIN-695502. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR DETENUE SMT.K.R.RIJA FOR DETENUE THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.) No.309 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioners - father in law and son in law, have come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Smt.Asha, a married woman and daughter of the 1st petitioner and wife of the 2nd petitioner, aged 26 years (date of birth - 03.08.1984). According to the petitioners, Smt.Asha (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue), was legally married to the 2nd petitioner and they were allegedly leading a happy and contended married life. A male child, Adithyan, was born on 14.06.2007 in that matrimony. The 2nd petitioner/husband was employed abroad. According to the petitioners, the alleged detenue Asha developed an illicit intimacy with the 4th respondent and she along with her minor son Adithyan, aged 3 years, was found missing from the matrimonial home from 27.06.2010. A crime was registered later. The alleged detenue was produced before the learned Magistrate. In her sworn statement dated 06.07.2010 she stated W.P(Crl.) No.309 of 2010 2 that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. Accordingly she was permitted by the learned Magistrate to freely go from Court along with her son. Thereafter nothing was heard of the alleged detenue. According to the petitioners, they had no opportunity to meet and interact with the alleged detenue and the child when she was produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioners entertained an apprehension that she is under the illegal detention and custody of the 4th respondent. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners came to this Court on 27.07.2010. 2. When the matter came up on 29.07.2010, the Bench which dealt with the matter ordered notice to the respondents. The matter has come up for hearing today. 3. Today when the case came up for hearing, both the petitioners are present. They are represented by their counsel. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with her child. She is represented by a counsel. The 4th respondent has appeared before Court. He is also represented by a counsel. 4. We interacted with the alleged detenue and the petitioners in the Chamber after lunch recess. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 4th W.P(Crl.) No.309 of 2010 3 respondent, the learned counsel for the alleged detenue and the learned Government Pleader were all present. 5. The alleged detenue stated before us unambiguously and categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. It is her case that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty at the matrimonial home and she was obliged to leave the matrimonial home under tragic circumstances. She was compelled by the 2nd petitioner to leave the matrimonial home and in sheer helplessness she had left the matrimonial home along with the child. She has now taken shelter in the house of a friend of hers by name Selin Sheela, W/o.T.Mohan Raj, Moontam Pilavilai, Viricode (P.O), K.K.District. She is now residing along with the said Selin Sheela. According to her, she has no illicit or improper relationship with the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is only a neighbour. He had given some help on an earlier occasion when the alleged detenue suffered physical cruelty at the hands of the 2nd petitioner. There is no other relationship. The 4th respondent is not detaining or confining her, asserts the alleged detenue. 6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent is not interested in the dispute between W.P(Crl.) No.309 of 2010 4 the 2nd petitioner and his wife, the alleged detenue. It is admitted at all hands that the 4th respondent is an unmarried neighbour residing near the matrimonial home of the alleged detenue. 7. We attempted in the presence of the counsel to explore the possibilities of a harmonious settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the alleged detenue were requested during the pre-lunch session to attempt a settlement of the disputes between the spouses. We must record that such efforts have not borne fruit and the alleged detenue is not willing to go with the 2nd petitioner and/or the 1st petitioner. She asserts that she is residing with her friend S.Selin Sheela, W/o.T.Mohan Raj, Moontam Pilavilai, Viricode (P.O), K.K.District. She will continue to reside there. She wants to seek divorce from the 2nd petitioner and, in these circumstances, she prays that she may be permitted to leave the Court and continue residence at the house of her friend, the above said S.Selin Sheela. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the petitioners, there is no friend by name S.Selin Sheela and the alleged detenue is not residing with the said W.P(Crl.) No.309 of 2010 5 S.Selin Sheela. According to them, it is the 4th respondent, who is keeping the alleged detenue in his custody and confinement. 9. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue, an adult major woman, with a minor child, aged 3 years, is not under any illegal confinement or detention. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that she and her child are not under any illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further directions are necessary. 10. We make it clear that we have not chosen to express any opinion on the acceptability of the versions advanced by the petitioners, the alleged detenue or the 4th respondent. We need only mention that we are satisfied that the alleged detenue and her minor child are not under any illegal detention or confinement. Needless to say, the option of the spouses to move the courts for divorce, restitution of conjugal rights or custody of the child shall remain unfettered by the disposal of this Writ Petition. W.P(Crl.) No.309 of 2010 6 11. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) The alleged detenue Smt.Asha, an adult major woman, aged above 26 years, is permitted to leave the Court along with her child as desired by her. She will be at liberty to pursue whatever course she thinks is best in her interest. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/