Sheik Ismail @ Babu vs Deepu
2021 Latest Caselaw 3628 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                                   &

                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                         WP(Crl.).No.32 OF 2021


PETITIONER/S:

                SHEIK ISMAIL @ BABU
                AGED 65 YEARS
                S/O M.H. SAB JAN, MHS MANZIL, NOW RESIDING AT C/O
                SUNEEJ, VELIYATHPARAMMBU STREET, THANNIKKAL, KEERTHI
                NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA P.O.KOCHI-682 026.

                BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         DEEPU
                S/O LAKSHMANAN, PALLIPURAM HOUSE, THUMBOOR DESOM,
                KOTTANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
                DISTRICT, PIN-680 022.

      2         STATION HOUSE OFFICE,
                ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, KALOOR,PIN-682 026.

      3         STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                KERALA, PIN-682 031.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(Crl.).No.32 OF 2021

                                   2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The father and mother of a young girl was before us alleging

that the first respondent is keeping their daughter in illegal custody.

We directed the alleged detenue to be produced before us. The

parents were also before us. We talked to the alleged detenue, who

categorically submits that she has gone on her own free will with the

first respondent. They are seen to have entered into a form of

marriage and also given notice under the Special Marriage Act. We

permitted the parents to interact with the alleged detenue. After

interaction, we again talked to her. She was very clear in her mind

that she wants to go with the first respondent-her husband. In such

circumstances, we do not see any way to proceed further with the

writ petition. We dismiss the same allowing the alleged detenue to go

with her husband -the first respondent.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                              M.R.ANITHA

shg                                             JUDGE