Devan Ramachandran , J.

The petitioner alleges that the alleged detenue is being detained by her father – the fourth respondent and his family because, he is opposed to their relationship.

2. The alleged detenue was, however, produced before us by the 4^th respondent and we had an interaction with her. She told us unequivocally, and without any ambiguity, that, though she had affection for the petitioner in the past and though she had spent some time with him, she does not intend to continue with him and that she is not under detention of her parents. She affirmed that she came with her parents and wants to return with them.

3. When the alleged detenue has spoken so clearly and without any reservation, we are certain that we cannot exercise jurisdiction, in a plea for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

4. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed; recording that the alleged detenue has left this Court along with the fourth respondent and her family.

In order to ensure the privacy of the parties, we direct that the names of the parties in this case be anonymized in all papers.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 128