IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(Crl.).No. 17 OF 2008(S) PETITIONER: A. SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK, 'MUNDAPPALLIL VEEDU',CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA. 3. THE DY.S.P. (LAW & ORDER), ALUVA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION OF ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPCTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA TALUK. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHIYATHODU POLICE CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 7. SEBASTIAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. C.V. KUNJAPPAN, CHITTETHARAYIL VEEDU, WARD NO.9, KODANTHURUTHU PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA TALUK. 8. C.V. KUNJAPPAN, CHITTETHARAYIL VEEDU, WARD NO.9, KODANTHURUTHU PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA TALUK. R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(CRL.) 17/2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS DATED 9TH JANUARY, 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 WITH CURRIER RECEIPTS. P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.17 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner alleges that his unmarried daughter, Shali Shams, aged 22 years, is kept in unknown place by the 7th respondent with the aid and connivances of his father, 8th respondent. It is admitted that the petitioner's daughter is a 2nd year MBA student at MES College, Marampally, Aluva and she is staying in the college hostel. According to him, the girl was found missing on 8th January, 2008. On enquiry subsequently it was revealed that the girl was abducted by the 7th respondent and she is under his illegal custody. On 11/1/2008, when the matter came up for admission, we passed an order directing that if the alleged detenue, Shali Shams is under the custody of respondents 7 and 8, she shall be produced before this Court. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up for consideration today, the alleged detenue and respondents 7 and 8 appeared before us. Petitioner is also present. We have interacted with the alleged detenue. She stated that she is a major, that she is aged 22 years, her date of birth is 15/7/1985. This fact is not -2- WP(Crl).No.17/08 in dispute. She stated that she is studying for MBA, which is admitted in the writ petition. She also stated that she has gone along with him on her on accord and she decided to marry him. A notice under the Special Marriages Act for this purpose was already given and on the expiry of the notice period they will be getting married. She also said that she was in love with the 7th respondent and her joining with the 7th respondent is not under any threat or coercion and she is not under the illegal custody of any of the respondents as alleged in the writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submitted that the 7th respondent is a graduate and that he obtained a diploma in Fire and Safety Engineering and he is employed in Kuwait. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however placing reliance on two decisions of this Court in Prasadhkumar v. Ravindran (1992 (1) KLT 729) and Sreekesh v. Mohammed Asharaf (2003 (1) KLT 397), would contend that even if the girl has attained majority, the parents are entitled to have the custody of their children. We have perused the above two decisions carefully. In both the above decisions it could be seen that habeas corpus writ petition was filed alleging illegal custody of the girl by respondents 1 and 2 therein, who were parents. In the circumstances, -3- WP(Crl).No.17/08 this Court found that the girl is in the custody of parents and it cannot be said that the same is illegal for granting any relief in the habeas corpus writ petition. The above decisions are thus not applicable in the present factual situation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006 (3) KLT 375 (SC)) wherein the Apex Court held as follows: ".........There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives. No offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste......" 4. In Gian Devi v. The superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others (1976 (3) SCC 234) the Apex Court held that a woman who has attained majority is free to stay in any place she likes without constraint by her parents or alleged husband. That was also a petition for habeas corpus filed by Gian Devi who has been ordered to be detained in Nari Niketan, Dehi. The allegation was that Gian Devi had been residing in the -4- WP(Crl).No.17/08 house of Ganga Saran, who is the Vice-Principal of a college, in connection with her studies and she developed intimacy with Ganga Saran and after the completion of her studies, she came to her father's house. Her father, Sheesh Pal Singh wanted to marry her with another person. Ganga Saran then came to Sheesh Pal Singh's house and took away Gian Devi. It is also alleged that after Sheesh Pal Singh had brought Gian Devi from the house of Ganga Saran, he married her to Satish Chandran. During the pendency of the above case before the Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, the Magistrate passed an order directing that Gian Devi be sent to Nari Niketan, Delhi and be detained there. Dissatisfied with the order Gian Devi filed a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus in Punjab and Haryana High Court. That petition was dismissed by the said High Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Gian Devi then filed another petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus before the Delhi High Court. That petition was also dismissed finding that she was still a minor on the date of the order of the High Court. Thereafter, she approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was produced, as per the order passed by the Apex Court. She stated before -5- WP(Crl).No.17/08 the Apex Court that she does not want to be detained in Nari Niketan and that she wants to go with Ganga Saran with whom, according to her, she has performed marriage. Since the petitioner therein has stated unequivocally that she does not want to stay in Nari Niketan, her detention therein cannot be held to be in accordance with law. Accordingly, she was set at liberty. 5. Following the above decisions and in view of the answers given by the girl based on the interaction as recorded above, we find that she being a major, she is not under the illegal custody of anybody and she is a free person, she is set free. Writ Petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.