AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Neena R. Pillai, a young woman aged about 22 years (date of birth 28.4.1988). She is a student of B.Sc. Nursing course. She has completed her course. The petitioner knows Neena, the alleged detenue. They were in love. Their marriage was solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 20.9.2010. Even after the registration, they were residing seperately. The parents of the alleged detenue came to know about the solemnisation of the marriage. Thereafter, they were illegally detaining and confining the alleged detenue. The third respondent is the father of the alleged detenue. He is keeping the alleged detenue under illegal detention and confinement. According to the petitioner, the fact about the detention of the alleged detenue was conveyed to him by the alleged detenue over telephone on 29.9.2010.
It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 4.10.2010. The petition was admitted on 5.10.2010 and notice was ordered to the respondents.
Today when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The third respondent has come to Court along with his wife. He is represented by a counsel. Along with them, the alleged detenue, Neena R. Pillai has also come to Court.
As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of the third respondent, who is allegedly confining and detaining her, we did not ascertain the crucial response of the alleged detenue in the Court. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the chamber with opportunity for no one to influence her. In reply to our question, the alleged detenue stated categorically that she does not want to interact with the petitioner herein.
After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of her parents and the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader were also present.
The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. According to her she does not want to go with the petitioner. This is a decision taken by her voluntarily. It is further stated before us by the allged detenue and the third respondent that steps have already been taken to challenge the marriage registered under Ext.P1 by initiating proceedings before the Family Court, Kottarakkara u/s 25 of the Special Marriage Act. That petition is being filed on 6.10.2010 and stands registered as O.P. No. 899 of 2010. The parents of the alleged detenue are unable to accept the relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue.
The petitioner on the other hand submits that the alleged detenue is his legally wedded wife and that he wants to continue his relationship as husband of the alleged detenue. The petitioner laments that the alleged detenue is not speaking voluntarily and genuinely. According to him, she is under threat, coercion and pressure. He states that he willing to wait for any length of time. He expects that the alleged detenue shall get over her present difficulties and agree to go with him.
In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under illegal detention or confinement. Our interactions with the alleged detenue satisfy us that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. The parents may certainly be having some influence on her now. It would be ideal to reckon that such influence which the parents may and can legitimately have on her as amounting to illegal detention and confinement. At any rate, we are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement as to proceed to issue any further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This Writ Petition is in these circumstances, is dismissed. The alleged detenue is informed that she is at liberty to pursue what ever course she thinks is good and correct for her. We record that she states before us that she wants to go along with her parents. Accordingly we permit her to return from Court along with her parents.
The apprehension is expressed by both sides that vindictive and illegal retaliation may emanate from the other. Both counsel submit that there shall be no such action whatsoever from the side of their respective clients. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that needful shall be done and that any aggrieved person can make complaints to the police of any improper and contumacious act of the other and the necessary action in accordance with law shall be taken by the Police on receipt of such genuine complaints.