IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 374 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VINOD,S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MULLANTHOTTY HOUSE,IRUMALAPPADY, PANIPPRA PO, IRAMALLOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.N.N.ELAYATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. VINOJ K, S/O.KITTU, KOOMANKAD, THATHAMANGALAM PO, PALAKKAD -678 109. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON 28/09/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner, a young man, aged about 29 years, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Jemi by name, aged 22 years (date of birth 02.10.1987). The marriage between the petitioner and Jemi (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue') had taken place on 27.08.2006. A girl child by name Devananda was born on 11.03.2007. The alleged detenue was missing from 31.08.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his wife is under the illegal detention/confinement of the 4th respondent. A complaint was filed before the police. But the police had not succeeded in tracing the alleged detenue and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 17.09.2010. The petition was admitted on 22.09.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to 01.10.2010. 2. Today on the representation of the learned Government Pleader, this case was advanced for hearing. When W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 2 the case is called, the petitioner along with his counsel is present. The 4th respondent, Vinoj, who according to the petitioner was allegedly detaining his wife, the alleged detenue, is present. Along with him, the alleged detenue has also come to Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that the alleged detenue was traced by the police and she was produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate on being satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention, had set her at liberty permitting her to pursue whatever course she chose to follow. It is, in these circumstances, as directed by the police that the alleged detenue along with the 4th respondent has appeared before Court today. 3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 4th respondent, who allegedly is detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity to the petitioner to interact with her. The petitioner wanted and the alleged detenue agreed for such interaction. During the pre lunch session, the spouses were given opportunity to interact with each other. W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 3 4. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we interacted with both of them in the presence of the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were also present. The alleged detenue and the 4th respondent are not represented by any counsel. 5. The alleged detenue submits that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. She is now living with the 4th respondent. She is doing so, on her own free will. She does not want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. She wants a divorce. She has no objection in the petitioner keeping custody of her child. She has brought to Court today one gold bangle and two gold rings which she wants to give to her child. The child is not produced in Court today. 6. The petitioner after his interactions with the alleged detenue states before us that he is now convinced that the alleged detenue is not under illegal detention or confinement of anyone. He accepts the desire of the alleged detenue that she wants to put an end to the marital tie. He is willing to keep the W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 4 child in his custody and lookafter the child. He is agreeable for a divorce by mutual consent, subject to appropriate conditions. 7. The 4th respondent submits before us that he is aged 22 years. The alleged detenue is also aged 22 years. The 4th respondent submits that the alleged detenue has been residing with him and he is now willing to marry her in accordance with law after she secures divorce from the petitioner. 8. Thus at the end of the day, after interaction between the parties, the parties are in agreement that the marriage between the alleged detenue and the petitioner can be dissolved by filing a joint application for divorce by mutual consent. They also agree that the child can continue in the custody of the petitioner. The 4th respondent agrees that after the alleged detenue secures divorce from the petitioner, he will marry the alleged detenue in accordance with law. The request of the alleged detenue that the gold bangle and the ornaments may be received by the petitioner on behalf of her child is accepted by the petitioner and one gold bangle and two gold rings are handed over by the alleged detenue to the petitioner. We record that fact as agreed by both sides. W.P(Crl) No.374 of 2010 5 9. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement or detention. In this case, we are convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any such illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that this Writ petition can now be dismissed and no further directions are necessary. We have recorded the above facts only in our attempt to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement of all their disputes. 10. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) The alleged detenue is informed that she is at liberty to choose to pursue whatever course she thinks is best for her. She states that she wants to go with the 4th respondent and leave the Court in the company of the 4th respondent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/