AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basant, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners, a couple, for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce their daughter Anju Lakshmi, a young woman, aged above 22 years (date of birth 01.07.1987), who was employed as a Nurse at Bangalore and who allegedly was missing from 28.11.2009. The petitioners entertained an apprehension that their daughter Anju Lakshmi was being illegally detained and confined by the 3rd respondent, a classmate of the said Anju Lakshmi, in active collusion with his father the 4th respondent.
This petition was filed on 03.12.09. It was admitted on 04.12.2009. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date.
Today when the case is called, the petitioners are present along with their counsel. The 3rd and 4th respondents have appeared before the Court. No counsel has filed vakalat on their behalf. But they are accompanied by Advocate Muralidharan, who, it is submitted, was appearing for them before the court below when the alleged detenue Anju Lakshmi was produced before the learned Magistrate. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, we felt that she must be permitted to remain alone in the Chamber without any opportunity for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to influence her before we ascertain her response. We accepted the request of the petitioners for permission to interact with the alleged detenue before we record her response.
Accordingly we interacted with the alleged detenue after the lunch recess. She states before us that she is aged 22 years, that she was employed as a Nurse at Bangalore, that she was born on 01.07.1987 and that she is in love with the 3rd respondent who was her college mate. He is also a Nurse by profession. She stated before us categorically that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention and that she had chosen to go with the 3rd respondent on her own free and genuine will and desire.
We interacted with the alleged detenue separately initially and later in the presence of the petitioners. Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The learned Government Pleader as also counsel for both sides are present.
The alleged detenue Anju Lakshmi is a Hindu by religion, whereas the 3rd respondent is a Christian by religion. Both agree that they have decided to continue without any conversion of religion. They do however tell us that they had solemnised their marriage by exchange of garlands in a Hindu temple. They submit that they want time to get the marriage performed and solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
The 4th respondent submits that he accepts the decision of his son, the 3rd respondent, to get married to the alleged detenue and has no objection against such marriage. The 3rd and 4th respondents submit that they are willing to get the marriage solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
The petitioners after their interaction with the alleged detenue now state before us that they are convinced that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention. However, the petitioners submit that they will not immediately be able to accept the marital tie between their daughter and the 3rd respondent. The petitioners graciously submit that they would need some time to accept the reality and transform their attitude. However, the petitioners pray that it may at least be ensured that there is a legal and valid marital tie between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent. They may be directed to get married and to produce marriage certificate to confirm that they are legally man and wife.
Our interactions with all concerned convince us that the alleged detenue Anju Lakshmi is not under any illegal confinement or detention. No further directions are hence necessary. This Writ petition only deserve to be dismissed.
However we take note of the request of the petitioners that the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent may be directed to produce their marriage certificate. We take note of the stand taken by the alleged detenue as also the 3rd and 4th respondents that given some time, they shall produce the marriage certificate for perusal of this Court. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the case can be posted to another date to enable the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent to produce the certificate of marriage issued under the Special Marriage Act with copy to the petitioners.
This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. We permit the alleged detenue Ms. Anju Lakshmi to return from Court along with the 3rd and 4th respondents with whom she has come, as desired by her.
Call this petition again on 25.01.09. The alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent shall appear on this date. They shall produce the marriage certificate under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act as agreed by them. A copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioners.