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 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 477 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TOMY THOMAS, S/O. LATE THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS, PADINJARECHEMPANATTU, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.PAUL P. CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION. 4. SHIJU T.A., S/O. ABDUL LATHIEEF, ADHIKARI VALAPPU, REHMANIA COLONY, FORT KOCHI P.O. BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARAN. ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R4 SRI.PMA.KALAM FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No.477 of 2009-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his daughter Ms .Neethumol Tomy aged 21 years who has been missing from 26/10/09. The petitioner apprehended that his daughter was being illegally detained and confined by the 4th respondent herein. 2. The alleged detenue Neethumol Tomy is employed as a Nurse in Vishakapatanam. She had come to Kerala on leave. On 26/10/09, she returned to her place of work. The parents of the alleged detenue accompanied her up to the North Railway Station where she took the train to Vishakapatanam. But she did not go. But she continued with the 4th W.P.(Cri) No.477 of 2009 -: 2 :- respondent. A crime was registered under the caption “woman missing” as Crime No.1073/09 of the Mulanthuruthy Police Station. In the course of investigation in that crime, the alleged detenue was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Ernakulam, on 7/11/09 and the learned Magistrate permitted the alleged detenue to go with the 4th respondent accepting her wishes. 3. This petition was filed on 17/11/09. It was admitted on 18/11/09. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date. 4. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his counsel. His wife - the mother of the alleged detenue, is also present. The 4th respondent and his counsel are present. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the 4th respondent, she was permitted to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone to influence her. The petitioner and his wife - the parents of the alleged detenue, were permitted to interact with her in the Chamber. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue in the Chamber separately initially; but in the presence of her parents later. Subsequently, we interacted with her in the presence of the 4th respondent. The learned counsel for W.P.(Cri) No.477 of 2009 -: 3 :- both sides and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 6. The alleged detenue states that she is aged above 21 years - she having been born on 10/12/87. According to her, she is in love with the 4th respondent. They have already decided to get married. Notice for solemnisation of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act has already been given on 26/10/09. She is not under the illegal detention or confinement of the 4th respondent. She is living with him voluntarily from 26/10/09. She does not want to return along with her parents. She wants to go along with the 4th respondent herein. 7. In our attempt to reach a harmonious settlement, we attempted to persuade the alleged detenue to go with her parents to come back before this Court again after a week i.e., on 1/12/09 and state before us whether she wants to go with the 4th respondent. This we tried as we found that the petitioner and his wife were entertaining an impression - unjustified it appeared to us though, that the alleged detenue was under a spell of influence of the 4th respondent. Despite our very active efforts to persuade the alleged detenue to accept such a course, she did not accept the same. Even the 4th respondent in our presence attempted to persuade the alleged detenue to resort to W.P.(Cri) No.477 of 2009 -: 4 :- that course. But we are unhappy to note that the alleged detenue did not accept the suggestions of all concerned and insisted that she must be permitted to return along with the 4th respondent. 8. The alleged detenue is a grown up woman, she having already crossed the age of 21 years. We respect her decisional autonomy. We are satisfied that she is not under the illegal custody or detention of any one. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that it may be ensured that the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent are legally and validly married. As parents, the petitioner and his wife may be permitted to have the satisfaction that the alleged detenue has entered formal and legal matrimony. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that if given time, the marriage under the Special Marriage Act shall be solemnised/registered on or after 26/11/09 and the marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act shall be produced before this Court on 4/12/09. 10. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We accept the offer of the 4th respondent and the alleged detenue that they shall appear before this Court and produce the marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act along W.P.(Cri) No.477 of 2009 -: 5 :- with a copy thereof on 4/12/09. Copy of such marriage certificate shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner on that date. Call on 4/12/2009. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge