Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47175
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ
EBY FRANCISQ – Appellant
Versus
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) 385/2012
Individuals have the right to choose their living arrangements without coercion, reflecting the autonomy recognized by the Special Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Marriage - Special Marriage Act - Sections Referenced: 1, 4, 5 - The court interpreted provisions regarding marriage notices and custody inquiries, emphasizing the importance of individual free will in relationships. The ruling reinforced that the alleged detenue's consent and autonomy were vital in determining her custody status.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the daughter of the fifth respondent were in a relationship seeking marriage. After giving notice under the Special Marriage Act, the daughter was allegedly taken away forcibly by her uncle with police help, leading to the petitioner seeking her return.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged detenue willingly chose to stay with her mother and was not under illegal detention. Even after interaction with the petitioner, she expressed her desire not to go with him, demonstrating her autonomy.
Issues: Whether the alleged detenue was under illegal detention by the respondents or whether she had the autonomy to choose her living arrangements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of free will in personal relationships, affirming that an individual cannot be forced to return to another against their wishes, regardless of prior intentions to marry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no further directions were required.
JUDGMENT
K.T. Sankaran J., The petitioner and the daughter of the fifth respondent were working in the same concern. According to the petitioner, they fell in love and they decided to marry. On 19.07.2012, notice under the Special Marriage Act was given. It is alleged that on 26.07.2012 the daughter of the fifth respondent came to the house of the petitioner to stay there. But the fourth respondent, with the help of police, forcibly took her. It is alleged that she is under the illegal custody of the respondents 4 and 5, respondent No.4 being her uncle.
2. The petitioner and the alleged detenue are present before Court. She stated that she is not willing to go with the petitioner or to leave her mother. She stated that she is staying with her mother and she is not under the illegal detention of anybody. There is nothing to indicate that the alleged detenue is under the illegal detention of her mother. We also provided an opportunity to the petitioner to interact with the alleged detenue. Even thereafter, she did not change her mind and she stated that she wants to go with her mother.
She is free to do so.
3. It is admitted that a gold chain belonging to the alleged detenue is in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that certificates belonging to the alleged detenue are also with him. He returned the gold chain and the certificates to the alleged detenue (daughter of the fifth respondent).
No further directions are required. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed.
