Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1082 (KER)

Afsal C. A. v. State Of Kerala

2022-12-15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS

body2022
JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.), seeking for Habeas Corpus, are as follows: “i) To issue a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents 1-3 to produce the detenue from the illegal detention of 4th respondent so as to enable the detenue to take her own decision to live with the petitioner.” ii) To direct the respondents 1-3 to conduct necessary investigation into the Ext.P4 complaint to take necessary action against the 4th respondent in accordance with law. iii) To grant such other reliefs those are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. iv) To pay the cost of the petitioner.” 2. Heard Sri.P.Jinish Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.C. Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for official respondents 1 to 3. Notice has been duly served on contesting respondent No.4 (father of the alleged detenue) through the 3rd respondent – SHO, as ordered by this Court on 14.12.2022). 3. Though the 4th respondent has not entered appearance through counsel, we have interacted with the 4th respondent, through video conferencing session, today. 4. The case set up in the above writ petition (criminal) is to the effect that the petitioner, now aged 31 years, is having a love affair with the alleged detenue (Ms.N. Najiya, aged 19 years, D/o Nazar-4th respondent), and that the date of birth of the alleged detenue is 05.07.2003, and she has already completed the majority age of 18 years on 05.07.2021 and that, they decided to get married, etc. Further that, earlier, she had gone along with the petitioner and based on the complaint of the 4th respondent, a person missing case was registered by the police, in which the alleged detenue was produced before the learned Magistrate and she had, then, stated that she wants to go with her parents. 5. According to the petitioner, there is specific understanding between the petitioner and the parents of the alleged detenue that the marriage of the petitioner with the alleged detenue would be conducted without any further delay. But, contrary to the abovesaid assurance, now, the parents, more particularly the 4th respondent, are unlawfully preventing the alleged detenue in meeting and interacting with the petitioner and that she is under the illegal detention of the 4th respondent, etc. 6. But, contrary to the abovesaid assurance, now, the parents, more particularly the 4th respondent, are unlawfully preventing the alleged detenue in meeting and interacting with the petitioner and that she is under the illegal detention of the 4th respondent, etc. 6. We had issued a notice in this case and directed that the 3rd respondent-SHO will ensure the production of the alleged detenue, before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Palakkad, today. Today the alleged detenue has been produced before the Secretary, DLSA, Palakkad, and we have interacted with the alleged detenue through video conferencing session. We also interacted with the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent (father of the alleged detenue). 7. It is submitted by the Secretary, DLSA that, on interaction, the alleged detenue had told that she is now voluntarily residing with her parents and that she wants to continue her studies and that she doesn’t want to go with the petitioner, etc. In her interaction with us, the alleged detenue has told us, in clear and categorical terms, that she is not under the illegal detention of the 4th respondent or any one else and she is voluntarily residing with the 4th respondent and her mother in her parental home and that she is now studying for BCA course and also that, she wants to continue her studies and she doesn’t want to go and live with the petitioner, etc. 8. We have also interacted with the petitioner and apprised him of the stand taken by the alleged detenue. The petitioner has also assured us that, he will not, in any manner, cause any difficulties or harassment or hardships to the alleged detenue, etc. 9. The core of the issue is as to whether the alleged detenue is under the wrongful confinement of the 4th respondent or any one else. 10. On our interaction, it is crystal clear that the alleged detenue is not under the illegal detention or wrongful confinement of the 4th respondent or any one else and the alleged detenue is voluntarily residing in her parental home. Hence, the plea for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is not made out. No further orders and directions are called for. With these observations and directions, the above writ petition (criminal) will stand dismissed.