Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that her daughter- in-law, namely the wife of the her son, is being detained by the 5^th respondent, her father, because he disapproves of her marriage.

2.When this matter was considered on 20.01.2026, we were told that the alleged detenue, along with the 5^th respondent, was not in Kerala; and therefore, allowed her to appear before us online. 3.However, when the alleged detenue appeared online, we had reason to believe that she was not speaking freely; and we therefore, directed the 5^th respondent to produce her before us in person.

4.The alleged detenue was thus available before us and she affirmed that she had married the petitioner’s son. Initially, she said she wanted to return with the petitioner, namely her mother- in- law; but sensing some amount of confusion on her part, we allowed her to interact with the 5^th respondent, as also her brother, who was personally present. This interaction continued for about an hour within the court premises; and we talked to the alleged detenue again.

5.The alleged detenue told us that she has affection for her family but that she want to return with