Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9638
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.BASANT, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ
SUCY JOY – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPDT.OF POLICE(RURAL)ALUVA & OTHERS – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 201 2010
ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN FOR R4
The court affirmed that an individual reaching the age of majority has the right to make autonomous decisions regarding marriage, guided by statutory requirements for legal validity.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Minor Marriage Dispute - Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 - Special Marriage Act - Sections on Marriage Validity and Registration - Court emphasizes the importance of legal adulthood and marriage procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for her minor daughter, allegedly missing since March 2010, who was found residing with the 4th respondent, asserting they were married. Disagreement existed regarding her age, leading to discussions about her living arrangements until she turned 18.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the alleged detenue affirmed her age to be correctly represented as 28.09.1992. The court emphasized the necessity of following legal procedures for marriage and recognized the autonomy of the alleged detenue to choose her partner post-majority.
Issues: Whether the alleged detenue was illegally confined and whether her marriage, claimed to be registered under the Kerala Rules, was valid given her age and the differing religions involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that as the alleged detenue had attained majority, her personal choice over marriage was to be respected, albeit under the requirement of proper legal solemnization under relevant laws.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, permitting the alleged detenue to leave with the 4th respondent, contingent on future compliance with marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act.
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed by this Court resting with the order dated
13.07.2010.
2. The petitioner had come to this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her minor daughter Jeena Joy, aged less than 18 years (date of birth 28.09.1992), hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue', who was allegedly missing from 30.03.2010. Though a complaint was allegedly made to the police, the police did not take any useful action and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 01.06.2010.
3. The petition was admitted on 02.06.2010. The case was posted to 10.06.2010. On the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, the case was taken up for consideration on 04.06.2010. On that day, the alleged detenue was produced before Court.
4. There was a dispute between the parties about the correct date of birth of the alleged detenue. While the petitioner asserted that her correct date of birth is 28.09.1992 as revealed from Ext.P1 extract of the Register of Births and Deaths at the Kothamangalam Municipality, the alleged detenue had relied on her S.S.L.Certificate which shows her date of birth to be 28.08.1991. The Bench tried to induce the parties to come to a harmonious settlement. Accordingly the alleged detenue was persuaded to go from Court along with her mother and her paternal grandfather on 04.06.2010. It was agreed that they shall take the alleged detenue to the house of a relative - one Rajan at Thalacode. Accordingly the alleged detenue went with her mother, the petitioner and her grandfather on 04.06.2010.
5. The case came up again for hearing on 07.06.2010.
The alleged detenue was unwilling to go with her mother again. The petitioner as also her father in law stated that they cannot take the risk of taking the alleged detenue along with them to their residence as they apprehended that the alleged detenue may misbehave and they will not be able to keep her under control. Finally it was agreed that the alleged detenue can be accommodated at Santhi Niketan hostel, Pachalam, until she attains the age of majority, ie. till 28.09.2010, today. In the light of the controversy about her correct date of birth, we chose to accept the assertion of the petitioner supported by Ext.P1 extract of the birth register that she was born on 28.09.1992. From 07.06.2010, the alleged detenue is residing at the Santhi Niketan hostel. Expenses for accommodation are being made by the 4th respondent.
6. The apprehension of the petitioner, the mother of the alleged detenue, was that the 4th respondent was illegally detaining and confining the alleged detenue. It is, in these circumstances, that she came before this Court with this petition.
7. The 4th respondent appeared before Court. He filed an affidavit. In such affidavit, he had asserted that the alleged detenue had represented to him that her date of birth is 28.08.1991, as revealed from her school records. The marriage between the 4th respondent and the alleged detenue had taken place at Sidhasramam, Koovappady, on 02.04.2010 and the said marriage has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 . Certificate-Ext.R4(b), ie. Certificate No.A2-3781/2010 dated 13.04.2010 issued by the Secretary of the Koovappady Grama Panchayat was produced in support of the assertion of the 4th respondent and the alleged detenue that such a marriage has taken place. The petitioner had asserted that the alleged detenue was not aged 18 years and that her marriage, which is alleged to have taken place on 02.04.2010, cannot be held to be valid or legal notwithstanding the registration of the marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (common) Rules, 2008. The petitioner and her counsel had pointed out that, at any rate, the marriage between the alleged detenue, a person belonging to Christian faith and the 4th
