Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37132
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
NEERAJ – Appellant
Versus
C.I. OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU CIRCLE – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 219 2015
SRI.G.SUDHEER, K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
The ruling affirmed that adult individuals possess the right to make decisions regarding their marital intentions free from unlawful constraint.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Petition for Custody - Special Marriage Act Section List - The court interpreted the scope of habeas corpus in the context of a marriage proposal under the Special Marriage Act and found no illegal detention based on the detained person's affirmations of freedom.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for a woman allegedly held against her will by her parents. The couple intended to marry under the Special Marriage Act, but her family opposed it, leading to claims of unlawful detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court interacted with the woman, who denied any illegal detention and expressed her own intentions, leading to the conclusion that she was not unlawfully confined and could make her own decisions.
Issues: Whether the woman was unlawfully detained and whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued to secure her release and allow her to marry the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the woman's consent and lack of illegal confinement negated the need for a writ of habeas corpus, emphasizing her autonomy as an adult.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed and the woman was allowed to leave with her parents.
JUDGMENT
A bdul Rehim, J:
The petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct production of Miss. Saranya Krishnan, daughter of the third respondent, before this Court and to order her to be released to the petitioner and to permit him to marry her.
2. The allegation is that the petitioner and the alleged detenue Miss. Saranya Krishnan are in love and that they have decided to marry each other. It is stated that they have taken decision to solemnize the marriage under the Special Marriage Act . It is alleged that, on getting information about their decision, the third respondent and his relatives have taken the alleged detenue into custody during October, 2014. It is further alleged that the alleged detenue is now kept under illegal custody by the 3rd respondent and his family members, and despite the approaches made by the petitioner before 1st and
2nd respondents no action was taken to release her.
3. Pursuant to notice ordered by this Court to the 3rd respondent, he is personally present before this Court. It is reported that the alleged detenue Miss. Saranya Krishnan is also present before this Court. We have interacted with the alleged detenue Miss. Saranya Krishnan. She had emphatically denied the allegation that the 3rd respondent had kept her under illegal detention. According to her, she is attempting to convince her parents to have a marriage with the petitioner. She categorically expressed her desire to go back with the 3rd respondent. According to her she will take an appropriate decision with respect to the marriage, in future.
4. Considering the categorical statement made by the alleged detenue Miss. Saranya Krishnan, we are convinced that she is not in any illegal confinement of the 3rd respondent or any other relatives, as alleged in the writ petition. We notice that Miss. Saranya Krishnan had completed 24 years of age and she is at liberty to take her own decision with respect to her future life. Since we have found that there is no illegal detention of the alleged detenue in any manner, there is no circumstance warranting issuance of any writ of habeas corpus.
Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. The alleged detenue Miss. Saranya Krishnan is allowed to go along with the 3rd respondent.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
