An adult's voluntary decision to reside with another person negates claims of illegal detention under habeas corpus.

JUDGMENT

Ziyad Rahman A.A, J.

This writ petition is filed praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of her son Gireesh K. and set him at liberty.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, her son is under illegal detention of the 4th respondent at Bengalooru, where he was working. Earlier he was residing at Bangalooru along with his wife. In the year 2014, he sent her back to the native place, for ensuring the well being of the parents. Even though, the petitioner used to call his wife and sister frequently, for the past several months he has not been contacting them. While so, the wife and sister of the alleged detenu received calls from one Deepa, informing them that the alleged detenu is under illegal detention of the 4th respondent. On 29.11.2020, petitioner received a message from the alleged detenu to the effect that he is going some where due to fear of the 4th respondent and her gang. Thereafter, nothing is heard from the alleged detenu and she apprehends that the alleged detenu is illegally detained by the 4th respondent.

3. When the matter came up for admission on

01.07.2021, we passed an order directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Harippad Police Station to inquire about the whereabouts of the petitioner through the Inspector of Police having jurisdiction over the area in which the 4th respondent is residing. They were also directed to submit a report showing the steps they have taken, within a period of two weeks.

4. In compliance with the said order, they have contacted the alleged detenu and in pursuance to their instructions, the alleged detenu appeared before them on 11.07.2021 and his statement was also recorded. The aforesaid statement of the alleged detenu is now placed before us along with a report of the 2nd respondent. In the statement of the alleged detenu, he had specifically mentioned that, he is not under any illegal detention. He is residing along with the 4th respondent on his own volition, and he is having a child in the relationship with her. He further states that, he has some matrimonial disputes with his wife Deepthi and was living separately from her. He met the 4th respondent at that time and started a relationship which is even now continuing. He asserted that, there is no illegal detention as alleged in the writ petition.

5. The alleged detenu is aged 42 years and is capable of taking a decision on his own. We also notice that he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Harippad and as he asserted that he is not under illegal detention, he was set at liberty after interaction. In such circumstances, as it is a conscious decision taken by the alleged detenu to live along with the 4th respondent, it cannot be concluded that this is a case of illegal detention.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner or the wife of the alleged detenu to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies for redressing their grievances, if any.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE