IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 114 of 2011(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.ABOOBACKER, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MAKKAR KUNHI, BUSINESSMAN, PADATHAN HOUSE, VEMBILLI, KUNNATHOOR PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P.M.REMEES, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, POST MARKET, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686661. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, POST KUNNATHUNADU-683565. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682011. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1 SRI.T.PRASAD FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI KAMAPPU FOR R2-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(Crl.) No. 114 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue, namely Ansilaby. The illegal detention is alleged against the first respondent. 2. Today the alleged detenue, the first respondent, the petitioner and other relatives of the alleged detenue were present. We interacted with the alleged detenue, the petitioner and the first respondent. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. According to the first respondent and the alleged detenue their marriage has been solemnised under the Special Marriage Act. They made available the certificate dated 19.1.2011 to evidence the marriage. The alleged detenue says that she is not under any illegal W.P.(Crl.) No. 114 of 2011 :2: detention and she was in love with the first respondent. She further says that she went on her own and has married the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt submitted that the alleged detenue may be sent with the petitioner or to a hostel. According to him the circumstances in which the alleged marriage between the detenue and the first respondent is solemnised has raised suspicion that the alleged detenue is not a free agent. We again interacted with the alleged detenue and we are of the view that the petitioner is not able to show that the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or that she is not a free agent. Going by the certificate of marriage, the marriage between the alleged detenue and the first respondent was solemnised on 19.1.2011. Nearly two months have gone by and they are living together as husband and wife. 5. In such circumstances we do not see any reason to proceed further and we close the Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent points out that there is a threat to the life of the detenue and first respondent. The W.P.(Crl.) No. 114 of 2011 :3: petitioner would in fact submit that there will not be any threat. The learned Government Pleader would submit that if any threat is brought to their notice and on enquiry it is found genuine, protection will be given to the life of the detenue and the first respondent as against any threat from the petitioner for a period of six weeks. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/