IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 288 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.VASUDEVAN ASSARY, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN ASSARY, AGED 48 YEARS RESIDING AT 'VEENA BHAVAN' ASSARIVILA ANIYOOR, CHEMPAZHANTHY PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.V.VIJOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAZHAKKUTTAM POLICE STATION' THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SHIBU @ UNNI,S/O. THANKAPPAN AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNIAN MELE VEEDU PULIYANCODE,NJANDOORKONAM, NJANDOORKONAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R3 SMT.K.R.RIJA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Cri.) No.288 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 22nd day of July, 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 Veena.V.S, aged above 19 years (date of birth - 21.06.1991). She was a student of the first year B.Com. course. She was found missing from 09.07.2010. A complaint was filed before the police and a crime was registered as Crime No.484 of 2010 of Kazhakoottam Police Station. As the alleged detenue was not traced, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 15.07.2010. 2. This petition was admitted on 16.07.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his wife are present. The petitioner is represented by a counsel. The 3rd respondent has come to Court along with his mother - Chandrika. Along with them, the alleged deenue Veena has also come to Court. The 3rd respondent is represented by a counsel. W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 2 The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit also along with documents. 4. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of/along with respondent No.3, who, it was alleged, was illegally detaining and confining her, we allowed the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity for noone to interact with her. The petitioner and his wife were permitted to interact with the alleged detenue. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently we interacted with them in the presence of the 3rd respondent and his mother. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 6. The alleged detenue stated before us categorically that she is not under the illegal confinement or detention of anyone. According to her, she was in love with the 3rd respondent. Their relationship had started long back. When she was 17 years of age, she had run away with the 3rd respondent. On her father's complaint, she was taken back to her parental home. She had not completed 18 years then. Thereafter parents have been advising and counselling her not to continue the W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 3 relationship with the 3rd respondent. She was not allowed to go to school initially for a period of about a year. Thereafter she was permitted to join the college. According to her, she was kept under restraint by her parents. Unable to stand the trauma, she had once attempted to commit suicide by consuming dettol. She was hospitalised. According to her, she had always made it clear to her parents that after she completes 18 years, if the 3rd respondent would come to take her, she will go along with him. The parents were not helpful. They did not want her to marry the 3rd respondent. They want her to marry some other person. It is in that state of helplessness, she contacted the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent took her along with him on 09.07.2010. On that day, she had gone to her college and from the college she went along with the 3rd respondent. According to her, she had already got married to the 3rd respondent in accordance with the customary Hindu rites on 11.07.2010. The marriage was solemnised at Pazhanchira Devi Temple in Thiruvananthapuram. Photographs of the marriage and the couple have been produced by the 3rd respondent along with his affidavit as Ext.R3(b). She very emphatically states that she does not want to go with her parents and she wants to go along with the 3rd respondent, who is her legally wedded husband now. The W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 4 marriage has not been registered. The certificates of the alleged detenue to show age etc. are not available with her. They are with her parents. Those certificates are necessary to get her marriage registered. If the Court gives sufficient time, certificate of marriage will be produced, submits the alleged detenue. 7. The 3rd respondent confirms the version of the alleged detenue. He and his mother state that the 3rd respondent is legally married to the alleged detenue. The parents of the 3rd respondent have no objection against the said marriage. The alleged detenue will be taken to the parental home of the 3rd respondent. In these circumstances, the alleged detenue, the 3rd respondent and the mother of the 3rd respondent pray that the alleged detenue may be permitted to go along with the 3rd respondent. 8. The petitioner and his wife are unable to accept the relationship between the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue. They have their own reasons. It is not disputed that the 3rd respondent is an accused in a murder case. He is on bail now, it is submitted. The petitioner and his wife have a version that the 3rd respondent is a person of questionable antecedents. The alleged detenue is the only child of the petitioner and his wife. W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 5 They pray that they may be permitted to take the alleged detenue with them. According to them, the alleged detenue is mortally afraid and has been terrorised. That is why she states that she wants to go with the 3rd respondent. 9. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We did not ascertain the response of the alleged detenue in Court in the morning as we wanted the petitioner and his wife to have the satisfaction that they have spoken to their daughter sufficiently. We are now satisfied from the statement of the alleged detenue that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention of the 3rd respondent. We accept her statement that she has got her marriage with the 3rd respondent solemnised in accordance with law. We accept her statement that the marriage was performed with her free will and concern. We further accept the statement of the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent that if time is given, they shall produce before the Court certificate to prove the solemnisation of the marriage between them. 10. We tried to persuade the parties to come to some harmonious settlement. Our efforts have not borne fruit. The petitioner and his wife submitted that if the alleged detenue goes along with the 3rd respondent, she and the 3rd respondent should W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 6 not further pester and cause difficulties to the petitioner and his wife by coming to their residence or by demanding money, property etc. The 3rd respondent, his mother and the alleged detenue assert that they are not interested in any money or property and that they shall never cause any hardship or difficulties to the parents of the alleged detenue by demanding money or by going to their residence without their consent. 11. The alleged detenue states that her S.S.L.C book/certificate is available with her parents. She prays that, that may be returned so that she can continue her studies. That certificate will be necessary to get their marriage registered also, submits the alleged detenue. We are happy to note that even though there is no agreement on any other aspect, the petitioner and his wife agree to return the SSLC certificate to the alleged detenue though their counsel. Both counsel agree that the SSLC certificate shall be so handed over and received within a period of 5 days. 12. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under confinement or detention. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention. In these circumstances, no W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 7 further directions are necessary. However, we accept the submission of the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent that certificate of marriage shall be produced before this Court on the next date of posting if sufficient time is given. We further accept the submission of the petitioner that the SSLC certificate shall be returned within a period of 5 days through counsel to the alleged detenue. 13. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) The alleged detenue Veena.V.S is permitted to leave the Court along with the 3rd respondent as desired by her; c) We accept the submission of the petitioner that the SSLC certificate of the alleged detenue shall be returned to her through counsel within a period of 5 days. We further accept the submission of the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent that certificate of marriage shall be produced before this Court on the next date of posting. 14. Accordingly we direct that the case be called on 30.08.2010 for report regarding compliance of the above undertakings. The marriage certificate shall be produced along with a copy thereof for being furnished to the petitioner. Both sides pray that it may be ensured that they are not harassed, W.P(Crl.) No.288 of 2010 8 troubled and vexed by the other side. Both sides accept not to indulge in any such conduct. The learned Government Pleader submits that if either party has a grievance, they shall be at liberty to approach the 2nd respondent, who shall take the necessary and needful action in the matter. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/