IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 207 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KUMMALI SAHEER, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 28 YEARS, MORAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. FAKRUDHEEN HAJI, POOKODAN HOUSE, MORAYOOR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.CRL.NO. 207 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to trace and produce his wife Suhana, a woman, aged 23 years. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue, an adult woman, and he were in love. As there was opposition on the part of the relatives, they had on their own gone and contracted a valid marriage in accordance with Islamic rites on 4-3-2008. A complaint was filed and a crime was registered relating to the missing/disappearance of the petitioner. The petitioner and the alleged detenue later were produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. Their wishes were ascertained. As they claimed that they were legally married, they were permitted to go together. But the learned Magistrate, it is submitted, had insisted that a WPCrl.207/2009 -2- marriage legally valid must be performed again. Accordingly, such marriage was also performed. The learned Magistrate was informed of the same and the spouses were permitted to leave together. Thereafter, the spouses were living together for a period exceeding 5 months. The marriage has been registered under the Special Marriage Act also submits counsel. The alleged detenue then returned to her parents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was illegally detained in the house of the third respondent and she was compelled to file a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against him. An application for divorce was also filed before the Family Court, it is submitted. Another petition was filed by the allleged detenue before the Family Court for return of gold ornaments. 2. According to the petitioner, he is satisfied that the complaint under Section 498A, application for divorce and the petition for return of gold ornaments were all not filed by the alleged detenue on her own free will. In his anxiety to ensure that his wife returns to him, he had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. As the alleged detenue did not appear before the Family Court, her application for divorce and WPCrl.207/2009 -3- application for return of gold ornaments and money were dismissed. The application for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed ex-parte. In spite of that the alleged detenue was not permitted to return to the petitioner and it is at that juncture that the petitioner had come to this Court with this petition. 3. The matter was admitted on 26-5-2009. Notice was ordered to all respondents. Today the petitioner and his counsel are present before court. The third respondent and his counsel are present. The alleged detenue Suhana also appeared before court along with the third respondent. As she comes from the custody of the third respondent and as the petitioner's counsel expressed apprehensions, her response was not ascertained in open court. But the petitioner and the alleged detenue were permitted to interact in the court hall and the response of the alleged detenue was ascertained by us in the Chambers at 1 p.m. The alleged detenue was careful to assert that she does not make any grievance of illegal detention by the third respondent or any other. But she submitted that she may now be permitted to leave the court with the petitioner. We called the third respondent, the petitioner and the alleged detenue to the Chamber along with WPCrl.207/2009 -4- their counsel. In the light of the categoric statement of the alleged detenue, an adult woman, aged 23 years that she wants to leave the court with the petitioner, we are satisfied that we need only permit her to go with the petitioner. But in one anxiety to ensure that there is a harmony in the relationship between the parties, we requested the counsel to explore the possibilities of a settlement. 4. The matter was called again after 4.30 p.m.and it appears to us that there is some improvement in the relationship between the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the third respondent that the third respondent entertain the anxiety that the alleged marriage performed between the petitioner and the alleged detenue may not be legal and valid or in accordance with the personal law. It appears that he wants to insist that a formal legal marriage to satisfy his sentiments must be performed afresh. The petitioner and his counsel and the alleged detenue graciously accept that they are prepared to do anything to accommodate the wishes of the third respondent and to permit the performance of a marriage in accordance with the wishes of the third respondent, if he so desires. We requested WPCrl.207/2009 -5- the parties to take time and to report back to this Court of such harmonious resolution of all disputes. 5. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the alleged detenue, Suhana is permitted to leave the court with the petitioner as desired by her. But we note the willingness of the petitioner and the alleged detenue to accommodate the sentiments of the third respondent to perform whatever he wants to satisfy himself without in any way conceding that the marriage already performed is not legal. 6. Call this petition again on 3-8-2009 by which date we expect the parties to report to the court that all disputes and differences have been settled harmoniously. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ks. WPCrl.207/2009 -6-