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 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 371 of 2009(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.A.HAKKIM,S/O.VAVAKUNJU RAWTHER, CHARUVILA VEEDU,(CHANDAYIL VEEDU), VELINALLOOR VILLAGE, OYOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.MATHAI,CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTOORMUKKU, ULIYANADU MURI, VETTIKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SMT.LUCY, D/O.MATHAI,LUCY VILLA, PERUNGALLOOR, AYUR, KOLLAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(Crl).No.371 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner has come to this court with this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus raising the allegation that Ms.Anitha, with whom he is in love, a woman aged about 23 years according to him, is illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4, her father and sister respectively. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his counsel are present. Respondents 3 and 4 are present. They are not represented by any counsel. The learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 is present. The 2nd respondent is personally present. 4. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the chamber. After lunch recess, we interacted with her alone initially and later in the presence of respondents 3 and 4 as also the petitioner. The alleged detenue submits that she is not W.P.Crl No.371/09 2 under illegal detention or confinement of anyone. Respondents 3 and 4 submit that the alleged detenue was found missing from 22/08/2009 and crime No.446/09 of Pooyappally police station registered on the basis of the complaint of the 3rd respondent on 23/8/2009. The learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, as also the alleged detenue, submit that the alleged detenue was taken to the learned Magistrate on 26/08/2009. Before the learned Magistrate, the alleged detenue stated that she is willing to go along with the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, she was sent along with the 3rd respondent. She is continuing residence along with the 3rd respondent now. 5. The alleged detenue, however, states that though she is not under confinement, she would now like to go along with the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is a married man having grown up children. He submits that he is making arrangements to divorce his first wife. He is in love with the alleged detenue and is willing to marry her. Admittedly, they are not married so far. 6. The alleged detenue insists that she may be permitted to go along with the petitioner herein. Respondents 3 and 4 submit that the petitioner is a married person much elder to the alleged detenue and it would ruin the future of the alleged W.P.Crl No.371/09 3 detenue, if she were permitted to go along with the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he is willing to marry the alleged detenue. 7. Various suggestions were made; but the alleged detenue is adamant that she does not want to go along with respondents 3 and 4 or reside in any hostel. She is unwilling to accept the request of the court that she may contemplate the situation for some period coolly and come back to court after some time. Respondents 3 and 4 are not willing to give the alleged detenue in marriage to the petitioner. No such marriage appears to be possible also as admittedly the petitioner is a married person having two children. 8. As all our attempts to reach a harmonious settlement did not work. It follows that the matter has to be disposed of now, in accordance with law. 9. The alleged detenue asserts that her age has not been shown correctly in the petition. She is really 26 years old. The alleged detenue asserts and respondents 3 and 4 accept that she is 26 years. She is a qualified nurse. On her own version, she is not under illegal confinement or detention by anyone. W.P.Crl No.371/09 4 10. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that as the alleged detenue is, on her own version, not under illegal custody or detention of anyone, she, an adult woman can be permitted to leave the court. It is not necessary for this court to direct her to go with the petitioner or respondents 3 and 4. We very much wanted the alleged detenue to go along with respondents 3 and 4 until she gets the issue of her marriage with the petitioner settled amicably. But she, a grown up adult aged 26 years, refuses to heed to such suggestions. 11. Having satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under illegal confinement or detention of anyone, as stated by her, we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. 12. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the alleged detenue, a young woman aged 26 years, shall be at liberty to pursue whatever course she decides to follow, in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.Crl No.371/09 5 W.P.Crl No.371/09 6 W.P.Crl No.371/09 7 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009