JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that the ‘alleged detenue’ is being detained against her wishes by respondents 4 and 5, since they are not in approval of their relationship.

2. The ‘alleged detenue’ appeared online before us today and we interacted with her in detail. Before we did so, we ensured that she was alone in her room, without anyone else to prompt her; and she told us unreservedly that she is not under detention, though admitting that she has friendship with the petitioner. She, in fact, added that her father – the 4^th respondent, has promised her that he will facilitate her interaction with the petitioner, so that all issues can be resolved.

3. We, thereupon, talked to the 4^th respondent, who was also present online; and he affirmed that he does not mind his daughter talking to the petitioner and resolving all issues.

4. It is thus obvious that this Court does not have to intervene, particularly when the ‘alleged detenue’ unambiguously told us that she is not under detention and that she has no threat from either of her