IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1946 WP(CRL.) NO. 1138 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MANJU RANAN AGED 40 YEARS W/O RANAN, PERUMBALA HOUSE, KALLAKKUNNU, NADAVARAMBU, VELUKKARA VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680661 BY ADVS.

ARUN ASHOK NEENA JAMES RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -

680125

3 JISMON AGED 20 YEARS S/O SANTHOSH, ARACKAL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576

4 SANTHOSH ARACKAL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576

5 SIJI SANTHOSH W/O SANTHOSH, ARACKAL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576 SRI P.M. SHAMEER-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandra n , J .

The petitioner alleges that her daughter, who is just 19 years in age, is being illegally detained by the third respondent and his parents - respondents 4 and 5. She asserts that the third respondent is merely 20 years age, incapable of contracting a legal marriage as per law; but that he is detaining her daughter without authority in the residence of his parents - respondents 4 and 5. She thus prays that the alleged detenue, her daughter, be set at liberty.

2. We had heard Sri.Arun Ashok Iyyani -

learned counsel for the petitioner on the above lines on 28.10.2024; and we had issued notice to the party respondents.

3. Today, the party respondents, along with the alleged detenue, are before us.

4. We have interacted with the alleged detenue, who confirmed that her date of birth is 13.10.2005 and that she is presently living along with the fifth respondent, who is the mother of the third respondent. She submitted that she does not want to continue in such manner because the third respondent is yet not 21 years old and incapable of marrying her; but that she wants to marry him and live with him, once he becomes so capable. She concluded saying that if her parents give her an assurance that her wishes will be acceded to in due course, she wants to return with them.

5. We thereupon talked to the petitioner, who was present along with her husband. They also affirmed that they are not against the wishes of their daughter; but that she cannot be allowed to reside with respondents 4 and 5, until such time as the 3^rd respondent becomes legally capable of marriage.

6. The 5^th respondent, who was also present in person, affirmed the afore, saying that she and her husband are committed to unite the children, adverting to their intent and wishes.

7. It is, therefore, obvious that the alleged detenue wants to return with her parents; and that the latter have agreed to allow her to marry the 3^rd respondent, whenever he attains legal competence to do so.

In such circumstances, we see no reason to issue any further orders; and therefore, close this Writ Petition, recording that the alleged detenue was and is not under detention and that she is, in fact, returned with her parents.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE SAS APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1138/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2024 Exhibit P2 A RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE POLICE STATION IRINJALAKUDA DATED 17-10-2024