Kerala High Court
J.Raj vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(Crl.).No.103 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
J.RAJ,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. JOSEPH,
11/100/1,
KURUSADI VILAI,
UNNAMALAIKADAI P.O.,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629 165
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
SRI.M.S.ANEER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 STATE POLICE CHIEF,
OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
W.P.(Crl) No.103 of 2021 2
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
THAZHEVETTIPRAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, PIN-689 645
4 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN-689 101
5 VISHNU,
RAS SALOON,
NEAR MAA HOTEL,
THIRUVALLA TOWN,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN-689 101
R1-R4 BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl) No.103 of 2021
3
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & K.BABU, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl) No.103 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The writ petition is instituted alleging that the daughter
of the petitioner named Remina, aged 24 years is under the illegal
custody of the fifth respondent.
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this court on
9.4.2021, the alleged detenue was brought before this court. We
have interacted with the alleged detenue as also the petitioner.
The detenue has informed that she is not in the illegal custody of
the fifth respondent and she is living with him on her own volition
after undergoing a marriage ceremony.
3. True, the alleged detenue and the fifth respondent
being persons belonging to different communities, they should
have solemnized the marriage in terms of the provisions contained
in the Special Marriage Act, 1954. On being asked to the alleged
detenue as to the reason why they have not solemnized their
W.P.(Crl) No.103 of 2021
marriage under the Special Marriage Act, she has informed that
steps are being taken by them to solemnize their marriage under
the said statute.
The validity of the marriage ceremony claimed to have
undergone by the detenue with the fifth respondent cannot be
gone into in a proceedings of this nature, and in so far as we are
convinced that the detenue is not under the illegal detention of the
fifth respondent, we deem it appropriate to close the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE.
tgs
W.P.(Crl) No.103 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BEFORE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.08.2020 ALONG
WITH POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
22.09.2020 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2021
