IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 453 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.SUDHEER, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARA PANICKER, KGRA 79, CHINGATHIL, KUREEKADU P.O., PIN-682305. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR SRI.C.C.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KAKKATTU CHAITHANYA, CHERIYANADU P.O. - 689511. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by us resting with the order dated 7/12/10. 2. Parties had settled their disputes. They had agreed to and have already filed a petition under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. We are informed that the terms of the settlement have been incorporated in the joint petition filed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the alleged detenue has opened an account in the name of the minor child `Varun Krishna' and the number of that account has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the settlement between the parties, we are W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 2 :- satisfied that this writ petition can now be dismissed as unnecessary, We do so. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 3 :- R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 ORDER Basant,J. Parties have settled their disputes. They have decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent by filing a petition under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and they have agreed on stipulations regarding maintenance payable to the child and custody of the child. The wife has agreed to give up her claims for maintenance if the marriage is dissolved by mutual consent. 2. Both counsel agree that the parties shall be taking necessary steps to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. They pray for time to file the application and thereafter report settlement of the present dispute before this Court. We do accordingly give the parties time. Call on 22/12/10. R. BASANT (Judge) W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 4 :- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 5 :- R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 ORDER Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife `Lakshmi Ramachandran' - a young woman aged about 28 years (date of birth - 5/5/1982). She is a B.Sc. M.L.T. degree holder. The couple have been blessed with a child/son aged less than 2 years now. According to the petitioner, his wife was being illegally detained and confined by the 1st respondent - his mother-in-law. It is, in these circumstances, that he came to this Court with this petition on 18/11/10. 2. Another Bench admitted the petition on 19/11/10. Notice was ordered to the respondents. 3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The first respondent is present. The alleged detenue has also come to Court along with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent and the alleged detenue W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 6 :- are represented by a counsel. 4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with the 1st respondent, who is allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with no opportunity for the 1st respondent to influence her. The alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to speak to her husband - the petitioner herein. 5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the alleged detenue and the 1st respondent were present. 6. The alleged detenue has stated before us categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. According to her, she does not want to resume cohabitation with the petitioner. She has narrated her reasons for such decision of hers. We do not want to state those reasons. We attempted to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement - either to re-unite or part as friends. Though immediate success has not been achieved, both counsel submit that some time may be granted to the parties to work out an amicable settlement either way. We also feel that such course will be ideal in the W.P.(Cri) No. 453 of 2010 -: 7 :- facts and circumstances of this case. 7. We do accordingly post this case to 7/12/10. By that date, we expect that the parties with the help of their counsel who, we note, are offering very sublime assistance to the parties, shall reach an amicable settlement either way. The alleged detenue is permitted to leave this Court today along with her mother - the 1st respondent, as desired by her. 8. Call on 7/12/10. R. BASANT (Judge) K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/