IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 45 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THAJUDHEEN, S/O. BADARUDHEEN, B.K.HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY, MATHIRA P.O., (VIA)KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, KOLLAM-1. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM-691 305. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 536. 4. SRI. FAISAL, A.N.COTTAGE, PALLIMUKKU, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 608. 5. SMT. SACHU, W/O. FAISAL, A.N.COTTAGE, PALLIMUKKU, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 608. 6. SRI. SHIBU, SARNA MANZIL, CHERUKARAKONAM, THOTTIKKAL, PERUNKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102. 7. SMT. SARNA, W/O. SHIBU, SARNA MANZIL, CHERUKARAKONAM, THOTTIKKAL, PERUNKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU R4 TO R7 BY ADV.SRI.SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(CRL) No.45 of 2011-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking production of his wife. Detention is alleged against respondents 4 to 7. The 4th respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The 5th respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent. The 6th and 7th respondents are their relatives. 2. Though we had not issued notice, on Government Pleader getting instructions, the alleged detenu was produced before us today. We interacted with the alleged detenu and also the petitioner. This was done in the presence of the petitioner and the alleged detenu. We also interacted with the mother of the alleged detenu. The alleged detenu would say that she is not prepared to go with the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that, in fact, petition seeking divorce is also filed. 3. In view of the stand of the alleged detenu, we do not see any scope for finding that there is illegal detention. In such circumstances, we close the writ petition. This is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the alleged detenu to approach any WPCR 45 of 2011 -2- other forum. 4. Petitioner made a request that the alleged detenu may be directed to reside with her mother or brother, and that she may not be allowed to reside with any other parties. We interacted with the mother and also the alleged detenu. The mother would say that the alleged detenu will stay with her for a period of two months. They have an apprehension that the petitioner may threaten them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there will be no threat at all from the petitioner or his men to the alleged detenu or her mother. We record this submission. We also record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that protection will be afforded by the Police Authorities to the alleged detenu and her mother against any threat from the petitioner or his men. After the period of two months, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the Family Court regarding the place where the alleged detenu should stay. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS/kbk