Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that the “alleged detenue” is under detention by her parents, namely respondent Nos.4 and 5, because they are not in approval of their relationship.

2. The “alleged detenue” was, however, produced before us by the 3^rd respondent; and we had a detailed interaction with her. She came across as a very articulate and smart person; and said that though she had some affection for the petitioner in the past, there is confusion in her mind because there are certain inputs about him that are deleterious and negative in nature. She made it clear to us that she wants to return with her parents today and requested that she be allowed to do so.

3. When the “alleged detenue' spoke so unequivocally and without ambiguity, we cannot exercise jurisdiction in this case because, the only plea is for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

4. To paraphrase, when the “alleged detenue” affirms that she is not under detention and that she is living with her parents of her own free will, further proceedings in this Writ Petition will have to cease.

5. In the afore circumstances, this writ Petition is dismissed.

In order to protect the privacy of the parties, we direct