Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37116
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
SANAL KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 273 2015
SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL), ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PS.S.ABDUL KAREEM
A writ of Habeas Corpus is not issued when the alleged detenue confirms her consent and withdrawal from a relationship without illegal custody.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Custody Dispute - Article 226 - The court addressed the issue of illegal detention under Article 226, emphasizing that the alleged detenue willingly withdrew from the relationship and was not in illegal custody, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that Ms.Divyamol was illegally detained by her third respondent parent, impeding her marriage intentions. Ms.Divyamol, aged 22, confirmed she was not under illegal custody and wished to withdraw from the relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements from both the alleged detenue and the petitioner indicated that Ms.Divyamol was not being held against her will. She expressed no intention to continue the relationship and had received her documents back.
Issues: Whether the alleged detenue was under illegal detention by the third respondent, warranting a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that a writ of Habeas Corpus was unwarranted as the alleged detenue was not in illegal detention, corroborated by her statements and the absence of any threats.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J This is an application filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of Ms.Divyamol.G, daughter of the third respondent, alleging that she is under the illegal custody of the third respondent, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
2. The allegation in the petition was that Ms.Divyamol, aged 22 years was in love with the petitioner and they have decided to conduct marriage and she has already entrusted the Original Election I.D. Card for the purpose of giving notice of intention of marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. On knowing about the relationship, the third respondent has now illegally kept her under detention. So the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or such other writ or direction, commanding the respondents to produce the body of Miss.Divyamol.G, aged 22 years, D/o Gopalakrishnan, before this Court and set her at liberty.
(ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.
3. On the basis of the allegation made on
22.06.2015, we have directed the first respondent to conduct discrete enquiry regarding the allegations of the petitioner and also depute a woman police officer, not in uniform, to record the statement of the alleged detenue and file a report along with the statement recorded of the detenue. Today, the first respondent has submitted a report along with the statement of the alleged detenue and also the present petitioner. It is seen from the statement of the detenue that though she was in love with the petitioner, now she had not intended to continue the friendship and her family members have decided to conduct her marriage and she is not under any illegal detention of anyone. None had threatened her and she had withdrawn from the friendship with the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the statement that the I.D. Card and other documents given for the purpose of giving notice of intention of marriage under the Special Marriage Act have been returned to her by the petitioner. They also recorded the statement of the petitioner, in that, he had also reiterated the same things mentioned in the statement of the alleged detenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that they decided to withdraw from their relationship and there is no necessity to issue any writ of Habeas Corpus as claimed. Under that circumstances we are convinced that the alleged detunue is not under the illegal detention of anyone, warranting interference of this Court issue a writ of Habeas Corpus as claimed by the petitioner.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
