IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 188 of 2008(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOBIN MATHEW, MANAPURATH HOUSE, JANAHAR JUNCTION, JNR 4-99, PATTATHANAM EAST, KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MR.DANIEL V.GEORGE, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), VINIVILLA, VETTIPUZHA (SOUTH), PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MRS.DANIEL V.GEORGE, W/O.MR.DANIEL V.GEORGE, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) VINIVILLA, VETTIPUZHA (SOUTH), PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. MRS.VINU DANIEL, W/O.BOBBY, AGED 26 YEARS, VINIVILLA, VETTIPUZHA (SOUTH), PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. MISS.VINI DANIEL, D/O.DANIEL V.GEORGE, AGED 26 YEARS, VINIVILLA, VETTIPUZHA (SOUTH), PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. FOR ADV.COMMISSIONER ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON (ADV.COMMISSIONER) THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(Crl.).No. 188 of 2008(S) A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19/07/2007 ISSUED BY SOFTSMITH INFOTECH PVT. LTD., CHENNAI. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/11/2007 WRITTEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY J.THERAS PRIYA THARSNI BEFORE THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAMBAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. \\TRUE COPY// P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(Crl).No.188 of 2008-S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T P.R.RAMAN, J. Pursuant to the order dated 10/06/2008, the alleged detenue, Vini Daniel appeared before us. The first respondent, the father of the alleged detenue as also her mother were present. The third respondent is an unnecessary party, therefore, she is removed from the party array. 2. Before we ordered personal appearance of the parties, to see whether there is any prima facie case we had appointed a Commissioner to interact with the alleged detenue and to file a report on the allegations contained in the writ petition whether the fourth respondent is under illegal custody by her parents. The report filed supported the allegation to be true. 3. However, we wanted to interact directly with the fourth respondent before final orders are passed. It was in those circumstances, we had directed the parties to appear. 4. We interacted Vini Daniel, the alleged detenue in the presence of her parents. She stated that she is 27 years of age. She is a B.Tech Computer Science Engineer who was working in a company by name Soft Smooth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. at Chennai and she came down to Kerala on a call by her parents sometime in November, 2007. She stated that she was not permitted to go back and she had been under W.P.(Crl).NO.188/2008 -:2:- house arrest. It is true that the petitioner who is two years younger to her has also completed his engineering course but has yet to take a Degree. She stated that she wanted to marry the petitioner but she will be marrying him only after securing a job. Now she wants to go to Chennai to continue her employment. 5. We interacted with the petitioner also. He submits that he is going to Mangalore to finish his examinations since he has did his studies there. 6. We record the above submissions. We find that the fourth respondent is a matured educated girl who can take a decision independently in the matter of her marriage. We counselled her that it will be advisable that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent secure a job before they actually marry. For this course, the parties agree. The petitioner wants to go abroad to join his brother at California after the marriage. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the fourth respondent is a major and who is entitled to take a decision, we let her free. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms