Rajesh vs K.C. Ravi Girija Nivas, Sreekrishnapuram, Kottappuram. P.O. Karimpuzha, Palakkad-679513, The Superintendent of Police Palakkad-679513, The Deputy Superintendent of Police Shornur-679121 and The Sub Inspector of Police Mannarkkad Police Station, Mannarkkad-678591

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The petitioner, Sri. Rajesh, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the body of Kumari Harsha, his love, daughter of the 1st respondent, on the allegation that Kumari Harsha is being illegally detained by the 1st respondent against her wishes. On considering this writ petition for admission, this Court on 26.09.2012 issued a notice to the 1st respondent by special messenger and passed an order directing the 1st respondent to produce his daughter before this Court on 01.10.2012. Accordingly, the 1st respondent accompanied by his wife, his brother and his brother''s wife, has brought Kumari Harsha, who has passed TTC, before this Court. We interacted in detail with Kumari Harsha. She told us that she came into contact with the petitioner through calls made through mobile phone. According to her, the allegation that she is deeply in love with the petitioner is not correct. The further allegation that she is being detained by her parents against her wishes is also not true. She is a free person. She wants to return home along with her parents.

We interacted with the petitioner, Sri. Rajesh, also. He told us that had it not been for a message, which he received from Kumari Harsha in his mobile phone requesting him to take the initiative for liberating her, he would not have filed this writ petition. Ext. P2 produced by the petitioner will show that a lot of calls have been made between the petitioner and Kumari Harsha through their respective mobile phones. But, the only question that arises for decision in this writ petition where the principal relief sought for is a writ of habeas corpus for production of the body of Kumari Harsha, the petitioner''s love, is whether Kumari Harsha is under the illegal detention of the 1st respondent as the petitioner alleges. Having interacted with Kumari Harsha, we are convinced that the above question can be answered only against the petitioner.

Accordingly, we answer the above question against the petitioner and dismiss this writ petition.