Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38548
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
MUHAMMED RAFI T.A. – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED ALI – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 14 2017
SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA, SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF, SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
A person’s consent and voluntary association are critical in determining legal custody in marriage-related matters.
Headnote:
Detention - Marriage Proposal - Writ of Habeas Corpus - No Legal Custody - Dismissal of Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleges illegal detention of the 1st respondent's daughter, intending to marry her. The marriage proposal was later dismissed due to the petitioner’s lack of qualification. The detenue claims she is not detained and is living voluntarily with her parents.
Finding of the Court:
The court interacted with the detenue, who confirmed she was not illegally detained and was living with her parents voluntarily. No illegal custody was found.
Issues: Whether the detenue was under illegal custody of her parents, restraining her from marrying the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the wishes of the detenue are paramount, and since she affirmed voluntary custody with her parents, no further directions were necessary.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed, detenue free to reside with her parents.
JUDGMENT
A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that Ms.Basheera.P.C., daughter of the 1st respondent has been illegally detained by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, petitioner and the daughter of the 1st respondent intended to marry and their marriage was also fixed. But, later on the 1st respondent, the father of the detenue had backed out. The petitioner apprehends that the detenue is under the illegal custody of the 1st respondent. Hence this petition.
2.The detenue is produced before this Court. She has come with the 1st respondent, the father of the detenue and her mother. A counter affidavit has also been filed. It is stated in the affidavit that, there was a proposal between the family members. Later it was noticed that petitioner did not have the qualification which he mentioned and thereafter the family members had backed out from the marriage proposal.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed on the clear assumption that the detenue had W.P.(Crl) No. 14 of 2017(S)
all the intention to marry the petitioner and she was being restrained under the illegal custody of her parents.
4.We have interacted with the detenue. According to her, she was not under the illegal detention of her parents. She was voluntarily residing with her parents. There was only a proposal with the petitioner and only if the parents agree, she could marry the petitioner or any other person as the case may be.
5.Having regard to the aforesaid submission of the detenue, we do not think that any further direction can be issued. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Detenue is permitted to go with her parents. If the detenue requires, appropriate protection shall be given by the police as and when required.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
