IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAKUMAR,S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI,AGED 53 YRS, ANEESH BHAVAN,PULIMATH,PULIMATH.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURAVANKONAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,KILIMANOOR. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,KULIMANOOR. 7. AJEESH,AGED 25 YEARS,V.R.NIVAS, HOUSE NO.11,WARD NO.VII,NELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH THYCAUD,VENJARAMOODU. 8. AJITHAKUMARI @ MOLLY,RESIDING AT DO DO. B7Y SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 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 his daughter `Arunima' - a young girl aged above 18 years (date of birth - 10/5/1992). She was a student of Plus 2 Course. She was found missing from 2/11/10. Complaint was filed. A crime was registered on 3/11/10. As the police did not trace the alleged detenue, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 9/11/10. 2. This petition was admitted on 10/11/10 and the matter was posted to this date. Notice was issued to all the respondents. 3. Today, when the case is called, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the alleged detenue shall be appearing W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010 -: 2 :- before this Court later and accordingly the case was taken up after the alleged detenue reached the Court. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of respondents 7 and 8, who are allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the Chamber without opportunity for any one to interact with her. We did, however, permit the petitioner - the father of the alleged detenue, to have interactions with the alleged detenue. 4. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her father - the petitioner. Subsequently, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of respondents 7 and 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were present. The alleged detenue, respondent No.7 and respondent No.8 are not represented by any counsel. 5. The alleged detenue and the 7th respondent state before us that they have been in love; that they had decided to get married; that the alleged detenue left the house of the petitioner on 2/11/10; that they had got married legally in accordance with the Hindu customary rites at the Umayattukavu Temple on W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010 -: 3 :- 7/11/10. A certificate issued by the Sub Group Officer, Thiruvan Vandur Devaswom is produced. We are further informed that an application has already been filed before the Thiruvan Vandur Grama Panchayat for registration of the marriage. An amount of Rs.100/- towards the fee for issue of certificate has also been remitted, it is submitted. The marriage certificate has not been issued yet. The petitioner and the alleged detenue submit that the certificate shall be obtained within a period of two weeks and copy of the certificate shall be handed over to the petitioner through the Sub Inspector of Police, Kilimanoor Police Station. 6. The 8th respondent submits that she was not willing to accept such marital relationship between the 7th respondent and the alleged detenue initially; but as her son has married the alleged detenue, she is now willing to accept the marital relationship and permit the alleged detenue and the 7th respondent to live along with her in a rented house which is in her possession. She states that she has secured a divorce from the father of the 7th respondent and is now residing with her present husband. She states that the 7th respondent has stated to her that he proposes to take another house and shift to that W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010 -: 4 :- house along with his wife i.e., the alleged detenue. 7. The petitioner submits that he helplessly is forced to concur to an unavoidable situation which has now arisen. He did not want the alleged detenue to get married to the 7th respondent. According to him, the alleged detenue had agreed and he was proposing to get her marriage solemnized. In fact, the engagement function for such marriage of the alleged detenue with another was to take place on 28/11/10. In these circumstances, even though he is not interested in such relationship between the 7th respondent and the alleged detenue, he does not want to raise any objection against the alleged detenue choosing to go with the 7th respondent. 8. The 8th respondent as well as her son the 7th respondent submit before us that there shall be no difficulty whatsoever for the alleged detenue when she resides along with the 7th respondent and/or the 8th respondent. They admit and accept that they do not expect any ornaments, properties or money from the petitioner or the alleged detenue. The request is that the alleged detenue may be permitted to leave this Court along with respondents 7 and 8. W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010 -: 5 :- 9. We are now satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We accept the statement of respondents 7 and 8 as also the alleged detenue that the marriage between the alleged and the 7th respondent has taken place in accordance with the customary Hindu religious rites. We accept their statement that the alleged detenue and the 7th respondent want to leave this Court together as legally married husband and wife. We accept the statement of the alleged detenue that she does not want to return with the petitioner and wants to leave along with the 7th respondent - her husband. We accept the undertaking of the alleged detenue, the 7th respondent and the 8th respondent that copy of the certificate of marriage duly registering the marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules shall be furnished to the petitioner through the 6th respondent within a period of 14 days. The learned Government Pleader undertakes to ensure that the 6th respondent shall obtain and hand over copy of certificate to the petitioner. We particularly record the submission of respondents 7 and 8 that they do not want to, intend to or hope to get any properties, ornaments or cash from W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010 -: 6 :- the petitioner or the alleged detenue in connection with this marriage. 10. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) The alleged detenue, who has come to this Court along with respondents 7 and 8, is permitted to leave this Court along with them as desired by her. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010 -: 7 :- The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the police, submits that the alleged detenue - a girl aged 19 years, has already been traced and produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had permitted the alleged detenue to pursue whatever course she thought was proper, submits the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been kept in the dark of all what transpired after the filing of this petition. In these circumstances, it is prayed that there may be a direction to ensure appearance of the girl before this Court so that her true and genuine response can be ascertained by this Court. We accept that request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We direct that the case be called on 30/11/10 on which date the respondents/police shall ensure that the alleged detenue appears before this Court.