Azif A. vs The Commissioner of Police and Others

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is the father of S. Fathima Farzan. According to him, his daughter Fathima Farzan is missing from 10.9.2013 and is being illegally detained by respondents 4 to 6. With this allegation, he has filed this writ petition to issue a writ of habeas corpus. On the filing of the writ petition, this Court passed order dated 20.9.2013 directing production of Fathima Farzan before this Court. Accordingly, along with the 4th respondent Fathima Farzan appeared before us. We interacted with her. She told us that she has completed 18 years of age and has left her parental home along with the 4th respondent voluntarily. She also told us that she and the 4th respondent have given notice as provided under the Special Marriage Act before the Iravipuram SRO on 23.9.2013.

Counsel for the 4th respondent also informed that they are in the process of completing the procedural formalities for getting the customary marriage completed at the Chinnakada Juma ath.

Learned Government Pleader also reports that the detenue and the 4th respondent appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam on 20.9.2013 and that, after questioning the detenue the learned Magistrate has left her with the 4th respondent.

Admittedly, the detenue is a major. She has also told us in clear terms that she is not in the illegal detention of any one and that, on the other hand, she is residing with the 4th respondent as chosen by her. If that be so, we cannot accept the case of the petitioner that the detenue is in the illegal detention of the 4th respondent.

However, though the detenue and the 4th respondent have given notice as provided under the Special Marriage Act and also stated to have applied for getting their customary marriage performed, as on date there is no marriage conducted. Therefore, detenue''s cohabitation with the 4th respondent cannot be allowed.

The learned counsel for the 4th respondent himself suggests that for the present the detenue can be accommodated at S.N.V. Sadanam, Kollam and according to the counsel, authorities of the hostel have agreed to accommodate the detenue.

We, therefore, pass the following order:

a. We dismiss the writ petition. However, we direct that for the present, the detenue will be accommodated at S.N.V. Sadanam, Kollam at the cost of the 4th respondent and the detenue will continue to be in the hostel until her customary or legal marriage, which ever is earlier, is duly performed/registered.

b. During her stay in the hostel, subject to the rules of the hostel, the 4th respondent and also the parents of the detenue will be allowed visitorial rights. It is directed that once the marriage is performed as above, it would be open to the detenue and the 4th respondent to vacate from the hostel and to live as their choose.

c. The 3rd respondent, who is present in court, is directed to ensure that the detenue is accommodated in the hostel as directed above.

d. Issue a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the 4th respondent.