A person cannot be considered in illegal custody if they voluntarily choose to reside with their family, as affirmed by their statements and supporting inquiries.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner imputes that the alleged detenue is under the illegal custody of her parents. He has narrated several events and incidents in the pleadings of this case in substantiation; but suffice to say, he prays that the detenue be released, so that she can live on her own free will.

2. When this matter was considered by this Court on

02.05.2023, the Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram was directed to conduct an enquiry and file a report.

3. The report has been placed on record, wherein, the following have been averred by the officer:

“2) It is respectfully submitted that in the Writ Petition the petitioner stated that he and the alleged detenue named Smt. Parvathy were on living together relationship for more than 1 and half years. On February 2023, the alleged detenue's family members visited them and took the girl with them telling that her father is admitted in the hospital. Further he stated that the family members of the alleged detenue do not allow the petitioner to see her or enter to their house. Therefore the petitioner approached the Honourable High Court of Kerala for release of the alleged detenue from the custody of her parents.

3) It is respectfully submitted that in the statement given by Miss.Parvathy, she states that she is an Engineering student and the complainant Arun G Nair was her personal gym trainer and during the course of training Arun G Nair proposed her but she rejected his proposal. She further states that her relationship with Arun was that of only as trainer and trainee. Arun insisted her to consume steroids for participating in bodybuilding competition and this led her to undergo treatment for bipolar disorder in Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama Hospital (The treatment summary is attached herewith). She also states that she is staying with her parents on her own will and wish. The alleged detention is baseless (The signed statement of Parvathy is attached herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court).

4) It is respectfully submitted that the statement of Parvathy's mother and father were recorded and they also stated that her daughter's relationship with Arun is only that of as a trainer and trainee and not of any other kind. They also denied the alleged detention raised in the writ petition.

Parvathy is staying with them at her own will.

5) It is respectfully submitted that the complainant Arun is a married person and not yet get divorced. As part of enquiry his statement also recorded and he admits that he is married and waiting for divorce.

6) It is also submitted that on enquiry, it is came to know that the alleged detenue is a person who is suffering from psychiatric disorder and undergoing treatment for the same. The complainant was her personal trainer and a person who is already married and almost 12 years older than the alleged detenue. As a personal physical trainer she was so close to him and may have shared some personal matters with him. He misunderstood the situation and proposed her but she rejected.

7) It is respectfully submitted that the allegations raised by the complainant are baseless and the girl is not in any kind of unlawful detention. The petitioner is already a married person. She is living safe with her parents at her own will. So it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the Writ petition with a direction to the complainant not to interfere in the life of the girl who is already going through mental trauma (sic).”

4. Today, Smt.A.Sakunthala - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the averments in the statement filed by the police officer, her client does not intend to press any further relief; but sought liberty to approach this Court again, if it becomes necessary in future.

Recording the afore, particularly the contents of the statement of the Police Officer, we close this writ petition; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if it become