IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 342 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRAJEESH, S/O. CHANDRAN, CHANDRAN NIVAS, NAGOORCHALLA, KOYYAMARAKKAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. 3. PRITHVIRAJ, S/O. JAYADEVAN, M.K.HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHARA P.O., KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 001. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P(Cri.) No.342 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Vishnuroopa, aged 21 years (date of birth - 23.03.1989), who, the petitioner claims, is his wife. According to the petitioner, Vishnuroopa (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue') and the petitioner were known to each other from early days. They were studying together. The alleged detenue is now studying for B.Sc. Computer Science course. The petitioner is also a student of Aircraft Engineering, a licensing course. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and the alleged detenue have got married in accordance with the customary rites at the Thiruvilluamala Sreerama Temple on 05.04.2010. According to him, they were living as husband and wife for a period of three months. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the relatives of the alleged detenue took her back from his house agreeing to accept the marital tie. Thus without W.P(Cri) No.342 of 2010 2 bona fides the alleged detenue was taken away from the house of the petitioner and was thereafter illegally detained by the 3rd respondent, the father of the alleged detenue. She was so taken away on 08.07.2010. Thereafter she is being illegally detained and confined, alleged the petitioner. 2. This petition was filed on 30.08.2010. The same was admitted on 31.08.2010 and the matter was posted to this date. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The 3rd respondent, the father of the alleged detenue, is present. He is represented by a counsel. The alleged detenue has come to Court along with the 3rd respondent. 3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 3rd respondent, this Court permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity for no one to influence her. To a specific query by us, the alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. Accordingly she was permitted to remain in the Chamber alone during the pre-lunch session. 4. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we interacted with them in the presence of the 3rd W.P(Cri) No.342 of 2010 3 respondent, the father of the alleged detenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present. 5. The petitioner asserts that the alleged detenue is still under illegal confinement. It is his case that after the marriage, the alleged detenue was produced before the learned Magistrate on 13.04.2010 and she had asserted before the learned Magistrate that she wants to go with the petitioner herein. It is accordingly, accepting the assertion of the petitioner that he and the alleged detenue are legally married and respecting the wishes of the alleged detenue, that the learned Magistrate had permitted the alleged detenue to go with the petitioner. Now the alleged detenue is under illegal detention. Her statement cannot be reckoned as voluntary. She is even refusing the request of the petitioner for opportunity to interact with her. This is obviously because the alleged detenue is under psychological pressure. 6. The alleged detenue states that she does not want to interact with the petitioner and she has nothing to talk to the petitioner. She is not under any illegal detention or W.P(Cri) No.342 of 2010 4 confinement. She does not accept the alleged marriage with the petitioner. She wants to return from Court along with the 3rd 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 detention or confinement. We have attempted to ascertain this crucial aspect. To ensure that the alleged detenue gives her genuine version voluntarily without being influenced by anyone, we permitted her to remain alone in the Chamber for some period of time and interacted with her alone initially. We must say that we are now convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention and that she genuinely and voluntarily wants to return from Court along with the 3rd respondent. It is true that the alleged detenue has expressed that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. We respect the decisional autonomy of the alleged detenue. She, as stated earlier, is a young educated woman, who is aged about 21 years. We accept her statement that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. We intend to express no opinion on the validity of the alleged marriage. Suffice it to say that we are convinced that the alleged detenue is W.P(Cri) No.342 of 2010 5 not under any illegal detention or confinement and that she wants to leave the Court voluntarily and genuinely with her father, the 3rd respondent. 8. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed. b) The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court along with her father, the 3rd respondent, as desired by her. 9. We hasten to observe that we have not intended to express any opinion on the validity of the alleged marriage between the alleged detenue and the petitioner herein. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/