IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 546 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANIL KUMAR, S/O.MURALI N.K., AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANIL NIVAS, KOYANTE VALAPPI, MADAPPALLI COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, (AGED AND FATHER'S NAME KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SREESYLAM, MADAPPALLI COLLEGE P.O., VADAKARA. 4. DEEPU S., S/O.SUGUNAN, AKSHARA HOUSE, OLD RAILWAY COLONY, ATHANIPARAMBU, OLAVAKKAD-678 002. BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 546 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 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 Ms. Shiyani - a young woman aged about 19 years (date of birth 3/10/91). She was a student of Plus Two Course. According to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenue did share a very intimate and personal relationship. They wanted to get married. But that proposal did not find favour with the relatives of the alleged detenue. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue was illegally detained by the 3rd respondent - her father. Against her will and desire, she was constrained to have marital relationship with the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue is not willing to have any relationship with the 4th respondent. W.P.(Cri) No. 546 of 2009 -: 2 :- She was being illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner had approached the local Magistrate for issue of a warrant under Sec.97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the alleged detenue was not produced before that court. The 3rd respondent appeared before that court and allegedly misled the court to believe that there was a marriage relationship between the 4th respondent and the alleged detenue. In these circumstances, that petition was dismissed. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue has been informing him that she is under illegal confinement. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition. This petition was filed on 16/12/09. It was admitted on 17/12/09. Notice was ordered to the respondents. 2. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. Respondents 3 and 4 have also appeared in Court. The 3rd respondent has come to Court along with his wife. The 4th respondent is also present. The alleged detenue has come to court with respondents 3 and 4 and her mother. 3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court in the custody of/along with respondents 3 and 4, we thought it necessary to permit her to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity W.P.(Cri) No. 546 of 2009 -: 3 :- for any one to interact with her. In Court, we wanted to ascertain from her whether she wants to speak to the petitioner. She stated that she does not want to. We allowed her to remain in the Chamber alone for about 3 hours and we interacted with her after the lunch recess. 4. We find the alleged detenue to be a weak willed girl. She is unable to speak out her mind fully. We interacted with her alone initially. Later, we interacted with her in the presence of her parents and subsequently in the presence of the petitioner. Finally, the 4th respondent was also permitted to be present. 5. The alleged detenue stated before us that she is married to the 4th respondent - a person distantly related to her, and that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. We specifically asked her whether she would like to return from Court along with respondents 3 and 4 or with the petitioner. She stated before us that she would now like to leave the Court with the 4th respondent. 6. The alleged detenue, in our assessment, is undergoing great mental trauma. It appears to be evident that she knew the petitioner earlier. But it is admitted at all hands that she was married to the 4th respondent. A marriage certificate has been W.P.(Cri) No. 546 of 2009 -: 4 :- produced to confirm that such marriage had taken place on 22/11/09. 7. In a proceedings for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, primarily, this Court is concerned with the question whether there is any illegal confinement or detention of the alleged detenue. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention. This is not to say that we have not perceived the trauma of the alleged detenue. She finds it difficult to take firm decisions. But to our questions, she stated specifically that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention and wants to leave with the 4th respondent. 8. The alleged detenue is a woman aged above 18 years. We respect her decisional autonomy. We accept her statement that she is married to the 4th respondent and now wants to leave with the 4th respondent. No other directions are necessary. 9. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No. 546 of 2009 -: 5 :-