IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 37 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MOHAMMED YOUSUF, S/O.MYTHEENKUNJU, RESIDING AT VP/III/1135, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, HARBOUR ROAD, VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD-682 506. 4. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, MARAVEETTIL, MADAVANA, PANANGAD P.O-682 506. 5. SULEKHA, W/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, MARAVEETTIL, MADAVAN, PANANGAD P.O.-682 506. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.KAMMAPPU ADV.SRI..K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R4,5 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR R4,5 SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY FOR R4,5 SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR FOR R4,5 SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR FOR R4,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPCR NO.37 OF 2011: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TURE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE NO.59/2010 DATED 24.11.2010. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2011. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(CRL) No.37 of 2011 -S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the Ist day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ of Habeas Corpus is filed seeking production of petitioner's wife whom he married as evident from Ext.P1 certificate of marriage issued under the Special Marriage Act. Allegation of detention is made against respondents 4 and 5 who are the parents of the alleged detenu. 2. Today, the alleged detenu was produced before us. We interacted with the alleged detenu and the petitioner. We also allowed the petitioner to interact with the alleged detenu. We also heard the learned counsel for the parties. The alleged detenu would say that there is no illegal detention and that she is not desirous of going with the petitioner. In such circumstances we close the Writ petition (Criminal). This will be without prejudice to the rights available to the parties to approach any other forum. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS