AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The Petitioners, who are the mother and husband of the detenue have approached this Court stating that the detenue has been illegally detained by the Respondents 4 and 5, who are stated as social activists, contrary to the wish and desire of the detenue.
Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court on 03.05.2011, the Respondents 4 and 5 have volunteered to produce the detenue before this Court on 06.05.2011. On ascertaining the views of the detenue, it is revealed by her that she has suffered much, at the hands of the Petitioners and it was in the said circumstance, that she chose to go away from the parental house and also from the control of the husband. It was also made clear that she was not in any illegal confinement and that she was residing with the Respondents 4 and 5 as a voluntary measure. However, taking note of the particular facts and circumstances, this Court found it fit to give some breathing time to her to take a final decision. Accordingly, the detenue was ordered to be accommodated in a ''neutral place'' so that she would have some time for ''self-introspection'' to decide as to whether she should join her parents or the husband, as the case may be. Accordingly, the following order was passed on 06.05.2011:
(i) It is ordered that Smt. Sreejitha @ Jeena will stay in Santhinikethanam Hostel at Pachalam from today and a Woman Police Constable not in uniform will accompany her to the hostel.
(ii) Among the Petitioners and Respondents 4 and 5, only the first Petitioner-the mother will have access to Smt. Sreejitha @ Jeena.
(iii) The entire expenses in this behalf will be borne by the Petitioners.
(iv) The detenue will be produced in this Court on 13.05.2011 for further consideration and orders.
Today, the detenue is again brought before this Court, when she asserted that she is not at all desirous of going back to join the Petitioners. It is reiterated that the detenue is desirous of residing with the Respondents 4 and 5 for the time being, who according to the detenue, have extended all necessary help to her.
In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the allegation of illegal confinement as put forth by the Petitioners is devoid of any merit or bonfires. No interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed, setting the detenue at liberty to pursue appropriate course as she likes.
This however will not prevent the 2nd Petitioner/husband from pursuing such other steps to have the company of the detenue, either by way of mediation or otherwise. This is recorded in view of the submission made by the detenue, that she is ready to live with the 2nd Petitioner/husband, if he undertakes that no further torture in any manner will be there and subject to the condition that he arranges suitable accommodation near the proposed place of her work. It is also made clear that this observation is not liable to be misunderstood as any direction or undertaking, but for the expression of mind of the detenue in the course of the proceedings.