AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alexander Thomas, J
The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.) seeking for habeas corpus are as follows;
“I. Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's fiancee Asna before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty forthwith.
II. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
III. To dispense with the translation of vernacular documents.”
Heard Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R-1 and Sri.K.I.Sageer, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2.
The case set up in the above W.P.(Crl.) is to the effect that the petitioner herein, aged 24 years, is having a love affair with the alleged detenue (Asna, aged 21 years, daughter of R-2) and that both of them belong to the same religious community (Muslim) and that they have decided to conduct their marriage, but R-2 (the father of the alleged detenue) is opposing the said proposal and that, of late, it is understood that the alleged detenue has been wrongfully confined by R-2 and that she was not given permission to interact with the petitioner in any manner etc. Further that, the petitioner is employed in a supermarket in Dubai and that the alleged detenue has completed her Plus Two course and has also undertaken a Diploma Course in Medical Laboratory Technology and is now employed as a Lab Technician etc.
We had issued notice in this case and had directed R-1 SHO to ensure the production of the alleged detenue before this Court today. Today, the alleged detenue has reported before this Court, along with R-2, who is her father. During our interaction, the alleged detenue has told us that, initially, R-2 had some opposition to the marriage proposal to the petitioner, as he was not convinced about the secured employment of the petitioner. But now, he has agreed to conduct the nikah and marriage and that she is not under the illegal detention of R-2 and that she is voluntarily residing there and that now, R-2 has agreed to ensure the conduct of the nikah of the alleged detenue with the petitioner on 10/03/2023. Further, the alleged detenue has told us that today she would go back along with her father to stay in her parental home etc.
Sri.K.I.Sageer, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2 has also made submissions that the W.P. (Crl.) has been filed out of unnecessary apprehension and that R-2's elder daughter's marriage was conducted only two months back and he wants some time to settle his financial affairs before he could conduct the marriage of the alleged detenue and that though, earlier, he had some concern regarding the secured employment of the petitioner, which was only out of the concern for the benefit of the alleged detenue, who is his daughter, now, he has agreed to conduct the nikah of the alleged detenue with the petitioner on 10/03/2023 etc. In the light of these aspects, we need not keep the case pending any longer. The basic allegation that the alleged detenue is under the wrongful confinement or illegal detention of R-2 or anyone else is not correct. The submissions of the alleged detenue and R-2 are recorded as above. No further orders and directions are called for.
With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(Crl.) would stand disposed of.