IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 239 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RENJITH SOMAN, S/O. SOMAN, AGED 27 YEARS, T.C. 10/675, NEDIYA VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KANJIRAMPARA, PEROORKADA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001. 3. SHAJAHAN, HOUSE NO.22, HARIVIPURAM COLONY, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, PEROORKADA-695001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(Crl.) No.239 of 2011-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the daughter of the 3rd respondent. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is running his own autorikshaw for his livelihood. Petitioner has been in love with one Shahana, the daughter of the 3rd respondent and they got married under the Special Marriage Act. Ext.P1 is the copy of marriage certificate. Parties belong to two different religions. According to the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner's wife opposed the relation and forcibly taken away his wife to some unknown place and is keeping her under illegal detention. 3. Though we had not admitted the matter, we directed the police authorities to conduct discreet enquiry. Today, when the matter came up, the alleged detenue was produced before us. The 3rd respondent was also present in Court, so also WPCR 239/2011 -2- the petitioner. We interacted with all of them. 4. The alleged detenue would say that she would like to go with the petitioner and not with her father. We placed the matter before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent did not oppose his daughter going along with the petitioner. In such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by permitting the alleged detenue to go with the petitioner as per her wish. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS