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 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 267 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAVEENDRAN D.K., INCHI PULLUVILA, LAKSHAM VEEDU, COLONY, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR POLICE STATION, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695525. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR POLICE STATION, POOVAR 695525 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. RATHEESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PP/I/56, MUTHUKKIPLAVILA VEEDU, POOVAR DESOM, THIRUPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695525. ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.267 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas to search for, trace and produce his daughter Ranju, aged 19 years (date of birth : 30/05/1991). According to the petitioner, his daughter the alleged detenue Ranju, has completed the Plus Two Course. There was an agreement for marriage executed between the 4th respondent and the alleged detenue at the intervention of the police on 14/09/2009. But, thereafter, the alleged detenue was left with her parents. The 4th respondent did not, thereafter, care about the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue was found missing from the residence of the petitioner on 31/10/2009. The matter was reported to the police and a crime was registered on 02/11/2009 as crime No.250/09 of Poovar police station. The investigation by the police did not succeed in tracing the alleged detenue and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 2 : came to Court with this petition on 06/07/2010. This petition was admitted on07/07/2010 and the case was posted to this date. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his wife. He is represented by his counsel. The 4th respondent is present. He is represented by a counsel. The police have traced the alleged detenue from Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu. She has been brought to Court. Along with her, one Manoharan, S/o. Guruvayya, aged 22 years, working as a Computer Designer at Penguine Prints, Sivakasi has also come to Court. 3. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the chamber without opportunity for anyone to interact with her. We permitted the petitioner and his wife to have interactions with their daughter, the alleged detenue. 4. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we had interactions with the alleged detenue in the presence of Sri.Manoharan, who has come along with her to the Court. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader were present. The alleged detenue W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 3 : and Manoharan have not engaged any counsel. 5. The alleged detenue has an unfortunate tale to narrate. According to her, she and the 4th respondent had a relationship and a marriage agreement was registered at the intervention of the police when her father complained to the police. They had not co-habitated after execution of that marriage agreement. She was left with her parents; but the 4th respondent did not turn up to enquire about her. Her parents and other relatives were all antagonistic to her on account of her relationship with the 4th respondent. In these circumstances, she was left with no other alternative; but to go away from her house. On 31/10/2009, she boarded a train to Madurai from Thiruvananthapuram and reached there. A good Samaritan, a Malayalee, helped her to secure admission to a Ladies Hostel. There, she was able to secure an employment. She was able to stand on her own feet and eke out her livelihood. Sri.Manoharan, who has come to Court along with her, was working in the establishment as a computer designer, where she was working. They met each other and fell in love. They got married, in accordance with the customary rights at the Madurai W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 4 : Meenakshi Kovil, Madurai on 05/03/2010. Thereafter, they have been living together as husband and wife from 05/03/2010. Now they have shifted their residence to the parental home of Sri.Manoharan at Sivakasi. There, his father and his brother are residing along with him. They have accepted the marriage between the alleged detenue and Sri.Manoharan. She is now four months pregnant. The alleged detenue states before us that she wants to go along with her husband, the said Manoharan. Sri.Manoharan accepts before us that the alleged detenue is his legally wedded wife and that she has become pregnant through him. He wants to take her back to his native place at Sivakasi so that both of them can reside at his parental home along with his father and brother. In these circumstances, they pray that they may be permitted to leave the Court together, they having already become legally wedded husband and wife. 6. The petitioner and his wife agree that wishes of the alleged detenue and Sri.Manoharan can be accepted and they can be permitted to leave together from Court. 7. The petitioner and the alleged detenue air an apprehension that they may be harassed and troubled by the 4th W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 5 : respondent. The 4th respondent undertakes that there shall be no such improper conduct on his part at all. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that respondents 1 to 3 shall do the needful. If there is any such improper conduct on his part, complaint can be filed by the petitioner, his wife and the alleged detenue before respondents 1 to 3 and the needful shall be done in accordance with law, submits the learned Government Pleader. The 3rd respondent who is present personally undertakes to do the needful. 8. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader as also the 4th respondent and his counsel. The 4th respondent and the alleged detenue accept that notwithstanding the execution of the agreement dated 14/4/2009, they have not become husband and wife under law. 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 any illegal confinement or detention. Though the petitioner initially apprehended that the 4th respondent may have abducted/kidnapped his daughter and he may be keeping her under illegal confinement or detention, it is now revealed W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 6 : that the 4th respondent is not responsible for the disappearance of the alleged detenue. We take note of the submissions of both the 4th respondent and the alleged detenue that there is no legally valid marriage between them and the agreement was executed under an improper notion at the request of the police. 10. In the result, a) This writ petition is dismissed. b) The alleged detenue and her husband Sri.Manoharan are permitted to leave the Court together as desired by them and as agreed by the petitioner and his wife. c) Sri.Manoharan and the alleged detenue, his wife, agree that their marriage shall be registered under the provisions of law and copy of a certificate of marriage shall be furnished to the petitioner within a period of three months. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 7 : W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 8 : W.P.(Crl)No.267/10 : 9 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009