IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 436 of 2010(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.S.SUMESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. N.K.SASI, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KAPIKKADU, KALLARA PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN SMT.J.DEEPTHI ROSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SHRI.IBRAHIMKUTTY, PADINJAREATTAM, VADAYAR VILLAGE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU PO,6896 605 KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001, P.O.KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAIKOM PO, VAIKOM 686 141. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THALAYOLAPARAMBU 686 605, P.O.THALAYOLAPARAMBU. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.C.KHALID FOR R1 SRI.T.P.SAJID FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT 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 Hiba, daughter of the 1st respondent, a young woman, aged about 24 years (date of birth - 21.05.1986). She has completed her B.Sc. Course. She had done P.G diploma course for Dialysis Technician. She was employed in the Lourde's hospital. On 26.10.2010, he and the alleged detenue entered matrimony before the S.N.D.P Branch Office, Madhuraveli. On 27.10.2010, she returned to her place of employment. Thereafter she could not be traced. According to the petitioner, she was under the illegal detention and confinement of the 1st respondent, her father. In these circumstances, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 08.11.2010. 2. This petition was admitted on 09.11.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The parties were directed to appear before Court today. 3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel also. The 1st W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 2 respondent has come to Court. He is represented by a counsel. Along with the 1st respondent, the alleged detenue, has also come to Court. 4. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 1st respondent, her father, who is allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain in the Chamber with opportunity for no one including the petitioner and the 1st respondent to influence her. To our query, the alleged detenue stated in Court that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. 5. We interacted with the alleged detenue in the Chamber after the lunch recess, alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Later we interacted with both of them in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader was also present. 6. The alleged detenue stated before us that it is true that she knows the petitioner for a long period of six years and they were in love. She further stated that it is true that some ceremony of marriage was undergone by them at the S.N.D.P Guru Mandiram at Madhuraveli. But according to her, she does W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 3 not want to continue the relationship with the petitioner. She wants to return along with her father, the 1st respondent. 7. In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied from the responses of the alleged detenue that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. We do not want to express any opinion on the other aspects. Suffice it to say that having satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention, we are satisfied that our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot, need not and does not deserve to be invoked. 8. In the result: a) This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed; b) The alleged detenue Hiba Ibrahim, a young woman, aged above 24 years (date of birth - 21.05.1985) is permitted to leave the Court along with her father, the 1st respondent as desired by her. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(Crl) No.436 of 2010 4