Unknown vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 11372 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11372 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2021

Kerala High Court

Unknown vs By Advs on 8 April, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                                   &

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

     THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                        WP(Crl.).No.97 OF 2021

PETITIONER

               SUDEEP T.S, AGED 22 YEARS
               S/O. SAJEEVAN T.V, RESIDING AT THUNDIYIL HOUSE,
               EZHUPUNNA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688537.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.JOHN MANI
               SHRI.S.JAYANT
               SRI.JACKSON JOHNY
               SHRI.VARGHESE SABU
               SHRI.SETHULAKSHMI K.K.
               SRI. SONY P.G.
               SMT.GAYATHRI MENON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
               DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               - 695001.

      2        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688012.

      3        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               KUTHIATHODE POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -
               688532.

      4        PRADEEP, AGED 53 YEARS
               RESIDING AT BHARGAVI BHAVANAM, THIRUMALABHAGAM,
               KUTHIATHODE P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688540.

      5        SHEELA. AGED 48 YEARS
               W/O.PRADEEP, RESIDING AT BHARGAVI BHAVANAM,
               THIRUMALABHAGAM, KUTHIATHODE P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 688540.

               SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

                 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
               HEARD ON 08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
               DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(Crl).97/2021
                             2


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated 8th April, 2021

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The petitioner aged 22 years old is concerned with the alleged detention of the daughter of respondents 4 and 5; who is also 21 years old. In the writ petition it is contended that the petitioner and the alleged detenue were in a relationship for the past 2 years. Due to the objection of respondents 4 and 5 they could not enter into a valid marriage despite their wish so to do, supported by the parents of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the alleged detenue has submitted an application before the Sub Registrar's Office, Kuthiathode, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. A notice of intended marriage is issued and affixed as per Ext.P3 and the intended solemnization was on 25.2.2021. However, due to the objection of respondents 4 and 5, it has not materialized. The petitioner's to be bride is in the illegal custody of her parents, is the plea made before this Court.

2. By interim order dated 31.3.2021, we directed the W.P(Crl).97/2021

3rd respondent to get a statement of the alleged detenue, through a Woman Police Officer without the presence of the alleged detenue's parents or family members. Today the statement has been produced by the 3rd respondent as recorded by a Woman Civil Police Officer and signed by the alleged detenue.

3. The statement of the alleged detenue admits the relationship and also confirms the notice having been made under the Special Marriage Act. The daughter of respondents 4 and 5 states that her parents were objecting to the relationship, especially since the couple were closely related. The mother of the petitioner is the daughter of the 4th respondent's brother. The statement further indicates that the alleged detenue was removed from her home but later produced before the Police Station wherein she denied her relationship with the petitioner. Though the denial in the Police station is not true, according to the alleged detenue, she does not now wish to continue the relationship. She is not happy with the manner in which the petitioner behaved with her parents. She also states that she has realized that it is not proper for her to marry with the son of her own cousin sister. She categorically states that she has not been W.P(Crl).97/2021

detained or harassed physically or mentally.

4. We find no reason to entertain the writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus. We dismiss the same leaving the parties to suffer their costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA, Judge

Mrcs/8.4.xxx W.P(Crl).97/2021

APPENDIX

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF DETENU WITH THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954 DATED 25.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE.