IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 448 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PRASAD K, "PRANAVAM", IAKARAVILAKOM, TC 9/961(2) EDAVACODE, SREEKARYAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE PS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARAYM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017. 4. REJI @ KANNAN, S/O RAVEENDRAN,MANVILA COLONY, NEAR BALASUBRAMANYASWAMY TEMPLE, ATTIPRA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583. 5. KOCHUKANNAN, S/O RAVEENDRAN, MANVILA COLONY, NEAR BALASUBRAMANYASWAMY TEMPLE, ATTIPRA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583. 6. VANAJA W/O RAVEENDRAN, MANVILA COLONY,NEAR BALASUBRAMANYASWAMY TEMPLE, ATTIPRA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(Crl.).No. 448 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 851/11 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE STU R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(CRL)NO. 448 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 10th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT R.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 adult major daughter, who is said to be missing from 26/9/2011. The police, according to the petitioner, was not taking effective and necessary action to trace his daughter, Arya Prasad, the alleged detenue. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and his brother and mother were illegally detaining his daughter, the alleged detenue. This petition was filed on 3/10/2011. Notice was ordered on the same day. 2. Today when this case is called, the petitioner and his wife are present. They are represented by their counsel. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have all come before court. Along with them, the alleged detenue, Arya Prasad has also come to court. 3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with respondents 4 to 6, who are allegedly detaining her, we WPCR 448/2011 2 permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity for the petitioner, his wife and another daughter of his to interact with her. During the pre-lunch session, they were permitted to interact. 4. After lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently, we interacted with her in the presence of the 4th respondent. 5. The alleged detenue is a B.A(Economics)student (1st year). She is aged about 22 years,her date of birth being 01/04/1989. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. She is in love with the 4th respondent and has gone with him voluntarily on her own. Respondent No.4 confirms this. They both stated before court that they are now legally married. Their marriage has taken place in accordance with customary rites on 2/10/2011 at Kerala Pulaya Maha Sabha, Manvila Branch Mandiram. They have produced a marriage certificate dated 2/10/2011 issued by the General Secretary of the Kerala Pulaya Maha Sabha. Certain photographs are also placed before court to confirm that such marriage has taken place. WPCR 448/2011 3 6. After interaction with the alleged detenue, the petitioner and his wife are convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention, but they are unable to accept the marriage between the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent. Copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Kerala Pulaya Maha Sabha is given to the counsel for the petitioner. 7. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We respect her decisional autonomy. We accept the submission of the alleged detenue and the 4th respondent that they are legally married spouses now. We are satisfied that no further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are necessary in this matter. 8. In the result, a)this writ petition is dismissed. b)The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the court along with the 4th respondent as desired by her. 9. Both sides assure the court that there shall be no contumacious conduct against each other. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 undertakes that the police shall ensure that this agreement is WPCR 448/2011 4 complied with and that action if any necessary shall be taken in the matter, if complaints are received from either side. 10. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for both sides immediately. 11. Marriage certificate and photographs are returned to the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. true copy P.S. TO JUDGE WPCR 448/2011 5