Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38112
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ
BALASUBRAHMANYAM – Appellant
Versus
CI OF POLICE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) 297/2012
The necessity for formal registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act to uphold personal liberties and legal rights.
Headnote:
Custody - Personal Liberty - Special Marriage Act Section 6 - The court assessed the implications of personal liberty and marriage under the Special Marriage Act, emphasizing the necessity of formal registration for validity and protection of the individual's rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's daughter allegedly went missing and was believed to be with the third respondent. After interactions with both, it was revealed she had voluntarily stayed with him but expressed confusion about her circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the girl could not make independent decisions regarding her religion and relationships, thereby deciding she should remain in a hostel until her marriage could be legally formalized.
Issues: Whether the girl has the capacity to make an independent decision regarding her conversion and marriage, and the legality of her custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that proper legal procedures regarding marriage must be followed to protect individual rights and personal autonomy.
Final Decision: Sowmya to stay in the hostel until her marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act.
J U D G M E N T
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The petitioner is the father of Sowmya, aged 19 years. She was studying in a parallel college. The petitioner states that on 9.6.2012, the girl went to the college, but she did not return. It is alleged that the girl is in the illegal custody of the third respondent Mohamed Hassan @ Amnas. It is also alleged that the third respondent is an active member of NDF. According to the petitioner, NDF is considered as an extremist association.
2. When the case was posted on 26.6.2012, we passed a detailed order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below :
“2. Today, the girl, her father and the third respondent are present before Court. We interacted with them.
3. The girl stated that on 9.6.2012, she went
along with the third respondent and they went to
institution called 'Sathyasarani Religious Educational Institute', Manjeri. She stated that religious instructions on Islam is being imparted in the institution and that she is provided with four books on the subject. We enquired about the details regarding the institute. She stated that there are separate hostels for boys and girls. She also stated that there are about 30 girls in the hostel belonging to other religions, who are undergoing religious instructions.
4. On an interaction with the third respondent, he also stated that he took the girl to Bangalore and stayed in a lodge. He does not know the name of the lodge. He does not know how much rent was paid. He did not disclose as to who instructed him to appear before the Magistrate's Court, Tirur. He stated that there was no sexual relationship between him and the girl.
5. The third respondent also stated that he went with the girl to Maunathil Islam, Ponnani for converting the girl to Islam, but they returned from that place as the third respondent thought that it was not safe there and there was no sufficient cleanliness. Thereafter, the girl was admitted at Sathyasarani Religious Educational Institute at Manjeri and she is staying there. He stated that he is prepared to marry her provided she converts to Islam.
x x x x x x
7. The petitioner was allowed to talk to his daughter for about half an hour. He stated that his daughter is at present in Sathyasarani Religious Educational Institute at Manjeri as stated by her. The petitioner stated that he is a coolie. He stated that he is helpless. He lamented that he has lost his daughter. At the same time, he added that let the Court be also concerned about 42 girls who were missing in and around Manjeri in similar circumstances and who were admitted in the religious institution referred to above.
8. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the alleged detenue is thoroughly confused and that she is not giving rational answers to the questions put forward by the Court. Practically she knows nothing about conversion to another religion, is the impression gathered by us on interacting with her. Prima facie, we are of the view that the girl is not capable of taking independent decisions in the circumstances. Therefore, we are inclined to direct Sowmya to be admitted in Santhinikethan hostel, Near Lourdes Hospital, Pachalam. The petitioner agreed that he will bear the necessary expenses for the stay of Sowmya in the hostel. He added that till she attained 19 years, he had maintained her and for a few days also, he could manage to maintain her.”
Thereafter, the girl is staying in Santhinikethan Hostel. On 4.7.2012, as agreed by Sowmya (the alleged detenue) and her father, we passed an order directing Sowmya to execute the necessary document relinquishing her rights in the residential property in which Sowmya's parents are residing.
