Personal liberty and consent are paramount; without evidence of illegal confinement, habeas corpus petitions cannot proceed.

JUDGMENT

M ohanan, J.

The petitioner, claiming that one Jubairiyathu.

R. is her wife, the marriage of which was solemnized on 11/6/2014, preferred this writ petition alleging that his wife is under the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6 and thereby prayed to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the 4th respondent to produce the wife of the petitioner, Smt.Jubairiyathu. R., and set her at liberty from the illegal and forceful detention of the respondents

5 and 6.

2. When the above writ petition came up for admission on 18/11/2014, while issuing notice to the respondents 5 and 6, they were directed to produce the detenue before this Court on this date and accordingly the detenue is produced. We have interacted with the detenue and the petitioner. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6.

3. The detenue, namely Jubairiyathu. R., deposed before us that she is aged 18 years and she will complete the age of 19 years on 21/1/2015 and at present she is a second year B.Com. student at Jyothy College, Kollam. According to her, she was in love with the petitioner and at present there is no such affair with him. It is also her version that she was compelled to sign in Ext.P1 marriage proceedings and as such her stand is that the marriage between the petitioner and detenue was not in accordance with her free mind and consent. On the other hand, when we interacted with the petitioner, he submitted before us that himself and the detenue were in love for a long time. But the family members of the detenue were against their relationship and therefore without disclosing to them the marriage was registered before the Marriage Officer, Kollam, as evidenced by Ext.P1. It is also his case that after the marriage on

11/6/2014 the detenue used to come to his house during day time under the pretext attending the class and by evening he had to drop the detenue at her house and thereafter on 16/6/2014 he left for gulf. It is the further case of the petitioner that again he was forced to come over India on 1/11/2014 as the family members of the detenue tried to arrange another marriage for his wife and, thereafter also, according to the petitioner, the detenue and himself stayed together one overnight and both of them were seen at Karunagappally Mosque and thereafter they went to Kozhikode and resided in the house of one of his friends on 4/11/2014 and, thereafter, as assured by the 5th respondent, both of them came back to their native place and the mother of the detenue, the 5th respondent, assured that she would arrange a formal marriage function for them. But, however, according to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has gone back from her assurance and, thereafter, he was not in a position to contact the detenue and under that circumstance he preferred this writ petition.

4. As far as this Court is concerned, the only question to be considered is whether the alleged detenue is under the illegal custody of anybody and the detenue herself deposed before us that though she was in love with the petitioner, at present she has no such affection or affairs and she has also deposed before us that she is not under the illegal confinement of anybody. If that be so, we have no ground to proceed with the enquiry in this proceedings, especially when no orders are warranted.

In the result, this writ petition is closed.