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 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 181 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.GOPINATHAN NAIR,S/O.VASU PILLAI, VALLYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, ERUMAKUZHY MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANAD. 2. RATHEESH,S/O.SANTHA, KURIKALLOOR,PUTHENVEEDU,KADAKKAD, PANDALAM PO. 3. SANTHA,DO. DO. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(Crl.)No.181 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT 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 Sreekala, aged 21 years (date of birth 21.01.1990). The petitioner apprehended that his daughter Sreekala, the alleged detenue, was being illegally detained by the 2nd respondent, a young man, aged 26 years, in collusion with his mother, the 3rd respondent. This petition was filed on 18.05.2010. It was admitted on 19.05.2010. The case was posted to this date. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his counsel are present. Respondent No.2 is present. He is not represented by any counsel. The 3rd respondent has not entered appearance. Along with the 2nd respondent, the alleged detenue has come to Court. She is also not represented by any counsel. 3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with the 2nd respondent, the person who is allegedly detaining her, we allowed the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity for the petitioner to interact with her. During the entire pre lunch session, they were permitted to interact with each other. W.P(Crl.)No.181 of 2010 2 4. After lunch recess at 1.45 p.m, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner and still later in the presence of the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 5. The alleged detenue asserts that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. She is an adult, major woman, aged above 21 years. She has taken a voluntary and informed decision to get married to the 2nd respondent. Their marriage has taken place on 13.05.2010 in accordance with Hindu customary rites at the Pithambillil Sree Dharma Sastha Kshetram, Vettuveni, Harippad. A certificate to that effect bearing No.KSS/VT/33/10 dated 13.05.2010 is produced. It is further submitted that steps have been taken to get the marriage registered with the Karthikappilli Grama Panchayat and necessary steps to get the same registered has already been taken. Certificate has not been obtained. Time is prayed for to produce the certificate. 6. The petitioner is now satisfied that his daughter is not under any illegal confinement or detention. Though he is unable to accept the relationship between his daughter and the 2nd respondent, he submits that if that is the decision of his W.P(Crl.)No.181 of 2010 3 daughter, he does not want to stand in the way of his daughter going along with the 2nd respondent. 7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that the alleged detenue, an adult major woman, is not under illegal detention or confinement. We respect her decisional autonomy. We accept the submission that the marriage has taken place in accordance with the Hindu religious customary rites. The petitioner also submits that he has verified and he is satisfied that such a marriage has taken place. 8. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this Writ Petition. 9. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. The alleged detenue Sreekala, the daughter of the petitioner, is permitted to leave the Court along with the 2nd respondent as desired by her. The certificate of marriage is returned to the 2nd respondent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/