IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 191 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SARAMMA JACOB, W/O.(LATE) PUNNAN JACOB, AGED 53 YEARS, 2/259-C, SHALOM, PUTHENPURAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA, COCHIN-21. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.A.M.NASEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANISH MOIDU, S/O.MUHAMMAD (LATE), KEERTHI NAGAR, VELLAPARAMBU, KARUKAPILLY, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. MS. NESEE.A.M, W/O.MUHAMMAD (LATE), KEERTHI NAGAR,VELLAPARAMBU KARUKAPILLY, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ENRAKULAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. (NAMES OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE CORRECTED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 03/06/2010 IN WP(CRL)191/2010) ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl) No.191 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier order dated 27/5/2010. 2. The alleged detenue has come to court today along with her mother, the petitioner herein. We interacted with the alleged detenue in the chamber after lunch recess. The alleged detenue now tells us that the decision of hers to go with the 1st respondent was taken without sufficient forethought and contemplation. She now realises that it was an incorrect decision. She does not want to go with the 1st respondent. She prays that she may be permitted to go with her mother, the petitioner herein. 3. As her statement today was incongruent to her stand on 27/5/2010, we tried to interact with her to ascertain whether this statement of hers is on her own or whether she is making such statement under any compulsion or pressure. We have interacted with the alleged detenue and we come to the W.P.(Crl).No.191/10 : 2 : conclusion that the decision of hers today is willing and voluntary. To make sure that such decision of hers is not influenced by any threat or inducement, we permitted the alleged detenue to be alone with the 1st respondent for some time for them to interact in privacy. Both of them agree and wanted such an opportunity. After returning from such interaction also, in the presence of the 1st respondent, the alleged detenue asserts that she wants to go with her mother. She wants to complete her education and she will think of marriage only thereafter, she states. 4. The petitioner, the alleged detenue, respondents 1 and 2 as also learned counsel for both sides and the learned Government Pleader were present in the course of our interactions with the parties and the alleged detenue. All concerned now accept that the alleged detenue can return along with the petitioner. The alleged detenue has brought to court today some articles which respondents 1 and 2 had gifted to her when she was with them. Those articles are returned. Both sides agree that they shall part as friends with no anger or rancour between them and that they will not cause any W.P.(Crl).No.191/10 : 3 : difficulties or inconvenience to the other on this score. Both agree that the alleged detenue and the 1st respondent shall be at liberty hereafter to marry anyone of their choice and that either will not have any claim against the other. They further agree that there are no other articles or valuables to be exchanged. Both sides agree that photographs, if any, available in the mobile phones shall be deleted. Some of them were deleted in our presence. 5. Both sides agree that intimation shall be given to the Marriage Registrar that they do not want to proceed with notice for solemnisation of marriage given already under the Special Marriage Act. The 1st respondent agrees that signature/thumb impression of the alleged detenue has been taken on a blank stamp paper to facilitate registration of the marriage. The same shall be returned to the petitioner through respective counsel, if the same is traced in the house of the 1st respondent. Even if it is not traced, it is agreed that, the same shall not, in any way, be misused. The mobile phone, kept in safe custody of the court, is returned to the alleged detenue. W.P.(Crl).No.191/10 : 4 : 6. The alleged detenue and the 1st respondent as also their relatives agree to part as friends and attempt to forget the unfortunate events that have taken place. They agree that, in no way, shall any problem or inconvenience be caused to the other on this score. 7. In the result, a) This W.P.(Crl) is allowed. b) The alleged detenue Nissi Jacob is permitted to leave the court along with her mother, as desired by her. 8. The names of respondents 1 and 2 shall be shown correctly in the cause title as Anish Moidu and Ms.Nesee.A.M. No formal application has been filed for the same; but we accept the prayer to get the names of respondents 1 and 2 amended. Registry shall carry out the correction. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.(Crl).No.191/10 : 5 : W.P.(Crl).No.191/10 : 6 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009