IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 390 of 2009(S) --------------------------- (Habeas Corpus) PETITIONER: --------------- BAIJU, S/O. LATE RAJU, BIJU BHAVANAM, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. NATARAJAN, SAHITHA BHAVAN, KOTTAKKAVILA, CHERVAKKAL, KOLLAM DIST. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. B. JAYASOORYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DT.25.5.2009. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) No. 390 of 2009 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of Sahitha, wife of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has entered into marriage with Sahitha, daughter of the 4th respondent, under the Special Marriage Act, Sahitha, who is aged 24 years, is retained by the 4th respondent against her will. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Marriage Certificate. The petitioner has filed complaint before respondents 1 to 3. But there is no action. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition. W.P.(Crl.) No. 390 of 2009 2 3. Today when the matter was taken up, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The 4th respondent as also the alleged detenue were present before us. 4. We questioned the alleged detenue. She would submit that she would like to go with the petitioner. Of course, she submits that there is no detention by the 4th respondent as such. 5. It is true that there is no detention. The marriage of the petitioner and the alleged detenue has been registered under the Special Marriage Act, as is evident from Ext.P1 certificate. In the light of the fact that the alleged detenue is desirous of going along with the petitioner, we allow the alleged detenue to go with the petitioner. 6. The 4th respondent submits that he is desirous of his daughter pursuing her B.Ed. course. The petitioner would submit that he is prepared to sponsor the future educational needs of his wife, the alleged detenue. W.P.(Crl.) No. 390 of 2009 3 7. In the light of this discussion, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the alleged detenue to live with the petitioner, for which she is desirous of. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sahitha may be allowed to take her certificates. The 4th respondent submits that he has no objection in his daughter coming home and taking all her certificates. We record the said submission. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm