Muhammed Ajmal vs Sivadasan, Prabhavathy, Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer

This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders dated 26.3.2010 and 29.3.2010.

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Sruthi, the alleged detenue, a young girl aged about 19 years - she having been born on 10.3.1991. She is a Hindu by religion. The petitioner is a young man aged 22 years. He belongs to the religious faith of Islam. The petitioner had fallen in love with the alleged detenue Sruthi. They had eloped. A crime was registered under the caption ''man missing'' as crime No. 547/09 of Malappuram Police Station. In the course of investigation, the alleged detenue was traced. She was produced before the Magistrate. She stated before the Magistrate that she was not kidnapped; but expressed her willingness to go with her father, the first respondent herein. Accordingly, the alleged detenue was living with respondents 1 and 2 - her parents from 7.12.2009.

Later notice was given by the petitioner and the alleged detenue of their intention to get married under the Special Marriage Act. The petitioner came to the Court complaining that the alleged detenue, an adult major woman, was being illegally detained by respondents 1 and 2.

This petition was filed on 22.3.2010. It was admitted on 26.3.2010. The alleged detenue was produce before Court on 29.3.2010. As directed by the Court, she continued to reside at ''Thanal Balasramam'' in Thrissur District.

Today when the case is called, the alleged detenue was produced. The petitioner is present. Respondents 1 and 2 are present. The alleged detenue initially refused to interact with her parents. This Court directed the alleged detenue to meet her parents-respondents 1 and 2 and to interact with them. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 were permitted to interact with the alleged detenue in the Chamber.

After lunch recess, at 1.45 p.m., we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later, we interacted with her in the presence of her parents-respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. Later, we interacted with all of them. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 , the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the alleged detenue were all present at such final interaction.

The alleged detenue asserts that she wants to get married to the petitioner and she wants to leave the Court along with the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has already made arrangements to get the marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act. He asserts that he does not want the alleged detenue to convert from her religion - Hinduism and is prepared to marry her under the Special Marriage Act. The petitioner submits that his parents will also accept him and the alleged detenue as legally married couple. He is well employed and has the ability to support the alleged detenue after his marriage with her. The petitioner is aged 22 years. According to him, he is working as a Distribution Sales Officer of Philips Products and gets an income of Rs. 10,000/- per mensem.

Respondents 1 and 2 are unable to accept the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. They were given ample opportunity to interact with the alleged detenue and persuade her to go with them. They are now convinced that the alleged detenue will not accept their request to go with them. This Court also advised the alleged detenue to go with her parents and come back to the Court on the next date of posting (after 10 days) so that she can have interactions with her parents and try to persuade them to accept her point of view. But, she does not agree and accept the said suggestion.

The alleged detenue is an adult major woman. We respect her decisional autonomy. Respondents 1 and 2 assert that they are not able to accept the relationship. Their inability to accept the relationship notwithstanding, we are satisfied that the wishes of the alleged detenue have got to be respected.

The petitioner points out that notice has already been given under the Special Marriage Act to get his marriage with the alleged detenue solemnised. That application was given before the sub Registrar''s Office, Chalappuram, Kozhikode on 31.3.2010. He submits that he shall get the marriage solemnised and registered within a day or two and produce the certificate of marriage before this Court.

We are in these circumstances satisfied that the alleged detenue can be permitted to go with the petitioner from Court notwithstanding the reluctance of respondents 1 and 2 to accept such course. We are, however, satisfied that the submission of the petitioner that he shall produce the certificate of marriage under the Special Marriage Act before this Court by the next date of posting can be accepted. The certificate of marriage along with a Photostat copy thereof for being furnished to respondents 1 and 2 shall be produced before the Court by the petitioner and the alleged detenue on the next date of posting.

In the result:

(a) this Writ Petition is allowed.

(b) the alleged detenue Sruthi, born on 10.3.1991 is permitted to leave the Court along with the petitioner Muhammed Ajmal as desired by her.

(c) We accept the undertaking of the petitioner and the alleged detenue that certificate of marriage issued under the Special Marriage Act shall be produced before this Court along with a copy thereof by the next date of posting.

Call this petition again on 02.6.2010 for production of the marriage certificate. The petitioner and the alleged detenue shall also be personally present before Court on that date.

Issue copy of the judgment today itself.