IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 519 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 42, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, KAMALA NIVAS, PONNARAMTHOTTU, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAKKARA. 4. ANEESH.P.R., PAVOOR VEEDU, KANCHIYAR.P.O., KANCHIYAR, KATTAPPANA. 5. JAGATHA, PAVOOR VEEDU, KANCHIYAR.P.O., KANCHIYAR, KATTAPPANA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.PADMARAJAN. R4 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(Crl.).No. 519 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 18.10.2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.). No.519 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Alleged detenue was brought to this Court yesterday. She was accompanied by the fourth respondent and his mother, the fifth respondent. 2. We had interacted with Sruthi, the alleged detenue, yesterday. 3. We have recorded in our order yesterday that she, very cogently, tells that she has married the fourth respondent and is living with him. We find that she is well oriented though she is still minor. The S.S.L.C book shows that she was born on 10.4.1995 which means that she is above 16 years of age. 4. Having interacted with her, we find that she has a coherent comprehension of the consequences of her actions. We record the statement of the fifth respondent that she was also present in the marriage ceremony between respondent No.4 and Sruthi. 5. We have seen different provisions of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1995 on request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Insofar as the exercise of writ jurisdiction is concerned, in such matters, first priority W.P.(Crl.) 519/11 2 is to find whether the allegedly detained person is under illegal detention. We find no reason to hold that Sruthi is under illegal detention. Though she is short of the age of being a major in terms of the Indian Majority Act, she has coherent ideas and reasons for her actions. She has certain attributes even to the situation that was available in her parental home. We are not prepared to say anything now on the validity of the marriage. With this, we also see the affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, the mother of the fourth respondent with whom we had permitted Sruthi to go since the petitioner was not available when case was called at the request of the learned Government Pleader and the police. We record that the fifth respondent will continue to act in terms of the affidavit filed yesterday and Sruthi can go with her and the fourth respondent. Ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc/17.11. W.P.(Crl.) 519/11 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(Crl.) 519/11 4