AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders resting with the order dated 18.8.2010. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his daughter, Arya, aged 21 years and her son Arun, aged 12 years. The alleged detenue, Seethalakshmi has also appeared before the Court. There is no counsel appearing for her.
The Learned Government Pleader reports that the police have made enquiries and the police confirm that the alleged detenue is residing with one Beenamma, at her house i.e., Beena Bhavanam, Poruvazhi, Sasthamkotta, Kollam. The alleged detenue asserts before us categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. According to her she has been subjected to physical and mental cruelty and does not want to continue residence along with the petitioner. She has taken residence along with her friend, Beenamma to save herself from physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the petitioner. She states before us that she is in a position to look after herself and that she has paid amounts to her husband and children. This assertion is denied by the petitioner. The alleged detenue submits that she expects to secure employment and hopes to work and earn her livelihood independently. She does not want to go along with the petitioner and her children.
The alleged detenue has an apprehension that the petitioner and his henchmen may cause trouble and harassment to her. The petitioner on the contrary asserts that the alleged detenue is acting at the behest of one Shiju and it was the said Shiju who assaulted the petitioner on an earlier occasion.
The learned Government Pleader assures that the police shall taken necessary action to ensure that no trouble or harrassment is caused to the alleged detenue or the petitioner. If either of them has a complaint, they can approach the respondents or any other police officials. The needful shall be done by the concerned police officials, submits the learned Government Pleader.
In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. We are satisfied in this case, that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. Our interactions with her convey to us that she is a firm willed woman who is in a position to take independent decisions of her own. We respect her decisional autonomy and accept her statement that she does not want to reside with the petitioner. We take note of her further submission that she has already initiated proceedings before the Family Court to claim divorce from the petitioner. The petitioner accepts that such a petition for dissolution of marriage has already been filed before the Family Court, Trivandrum.
Having satisfied ourselves that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention, we are satisfied that this petition can and need only be dismissed now.
In the result:
(a) This petition is dismissed.
(b) The alleged detenue Seethalakshmi, an adult major woman aged 42 years is permitted to leave the court on her own, as desired by her.
(c) We record the submission of the alleged detenue that though no counsel is appearing for her, the counsel who appears for her before the court below has come to the Court and is available elsewhere in the court premises. We accept her statement that she wants to return to Quilon along with the said advocate, who is appearing for her.