Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14342
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ
MANESH.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 505 2015
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SMT.V.BEENA, SRI.SAJITH C.GEORGE, SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL, SMT.V.DEEPA, SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, SRI.LIJU. M.P, SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
The court reinforced that bodily freedom of an individual prevails when expressed choice aligns with legal marital status, limiting grounds for intervention.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Detenue Freedom - Article 226 - The court found no grounds for interference with the custody of the detenue as she expressed her willingness to live with the petitioner, thus applying the provisions of Article 226 adequately.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the detenue, claiming she was forcefully taken by her father after they decided to marry. The court later confirmed that the detenue wished to be with the petitioner, leading to verification of their marriage.
Finding of the Court:
Upon reviewing the statements and circumstances, the court concluded that the detenue was free to live with the petitioner and found no justifiable grounds for issuing the writ.
Issues: Whether the court should issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the detenue from the custody of her father.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of the court was based on the expressed wish of the detenue to live with the petitioner and the valid marriage they had undergone, equating to her freedom from unlawful detention.
Final Decision: Writ petition is disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the body of the detenue Sarika, aged 19 years before this court and set her at liberty on the allegation that she is under the forcefull custody of the 4th respondent.
2. The basic facts alleged in the writ petition are that the petitioner and detenue had been in love for pretty long period and they decided to marry and live as husband and wife. The petitioner is employed in an advertising company at Ernakulam and he is having sufficient income to maintain the family. On 9.2.2015 the detenue voluntarily left her house to join the petitioner and both of them decided to marry and the petitioner tied thali on the detenue at the Bhadrakali temple at Karichara Moola, Thiruvananthapuram District and thereafter they resided together as husband and wife. They also decided to conduct the customary marriage in accordance with the Hindu religious rites W.P. (Crl.) No.505 of 2015 2 and custom at the said temple. While preparations were going on to the said effect, the 4th respondent who is the father of the detenue along with unidentified persons forcefully took the alleged detenue from the company of the petitioner. Thereafter a crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 308, 324, 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner has approached this court and secured bail.
3. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the entire episode was stage managed with a calculated intention to prevent the petitioner from living with the detenue as husband and wife. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 complaint before the 3rd respondent but in spite of his earnest efforts no action was taken. Consequent to which yet another complaint was filed on 5.12.2015, evident from Ext.P3. The said complaints were also forwarded to the 2nd respondent. In spite of all these, no proper action was taken to redress the grievance voiced by the petitioner and it is under such circumstances, he has approached this court by filing this writ W.P. (Crl.) No.505 of 2015 3 petition.
4. When the matter came up for admission on 16.10.2015, learned Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and the 3rd respondent was directed to conduct a discrete enquiry regarding the alleged detention of the detenue. A further direction was issued to depute a woman Police Officer to record the independent statement of the alleged detenue and to submit a report before this court. On 16.12.2015, the report was submitted before this court along with a statement of the detenue and after perusing the report and the statement, this court directed production of the alleged detenue. Accordingly on 21.12.2015, she was produced before this court and this court interacted with the detenue and she expressed her strong determination to get married to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, she was directed to be admitted in SNV Sadanam Hostel, Ernakulam. It was also directed by this court that the petitioner shall produce proof regarding submission of the 'notice of intended marriage' on 5.1.2016. The case was again posted to 21.1.2016 and on that day the petitioner has W.P. (Crl.) No.505 of 2015 4 produced proof regarding the 'notice of intended marriage' submitted before the additional 5th respondent on 26.12.2015 and thereupon this court permitted the alleged detenue to appear before the Marriage Officer for solemnization of the marriage on 27.1.2016. Apart from the same, further directions were issued on the basis of an affidavit filed by the petitioner before this court and the case was posted to this day. Today when the case is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a Certificate of Marriage bearing No.5/2016 dated 27.1.2016 issued by the Marriage Officer, Murrukkumpuzha, Thiruvananthapuram by which it is certified that the marriage between the petitioner
