IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 136 of 2007(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. NIRMALA K., S/O.POKKEN, VILAYARKODE COLONY, ERUVATTY (P.O.), KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. GEETHA P., D/O.KANNAN, PUNNANKODE, (P.O.)KOOVERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. FOUSIYA P.P., THENDIYODE HOUSE, CHAPPARAPPADAVU (P.O.), KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. RINI.P., (P.O.) KOOVERY, (VIA) CHAPPARAPPADAVU. 5. SHAJILA V., POONANKODE, (P.O.) KOOVERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. T.PRASEENA, ATHIRUKUNNAM, ERUVATTI (P.O.), KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. P.LEENA, THERANDY, (PO), KOOVERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. K.V.JAYASREE, PODILEKALAM PARAMBIL, MANGARA, P.O.CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.VALSALAN W.P.(C) NO.136/2007 RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRCTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, THALIPARAMBA, P.O.THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DITRICT. 4. CHAPPARAPADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CHAPPARAPADAM (POST), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has become infructuous. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 24.02.2009 SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS P.R.RAMAN & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------- W.P.(CRL)NO.136 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2007 JUDGMENT Raman,J. All the parties were present including the alleged detenu. We interacted with the parties. We also gave an opportunity to the parties to talk each other in chambers. We find that amicable settlement could not be reached. In the habeas corpus matter the jurisdiction is limited to find whether the alleged detenu is in the custody of her father, the 6th respondent. Based on the interaction, we find that she is not under the illegal custody of her father. She is a major. She is set free. Writ Petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. K.HEMA, Judge. kcv.