SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30421

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ
M.NANDANAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 83 2016



Advocates:
SRI.K.SIJU, SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH, RANDUPURAYIL, SMT.RENY ANTO, SRI.S.ABHILASH

A valid marriage and voluntary cohabitation abolish claims of illegal detention under habeas corpus.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Illegal Confinement - Writ Petition - Sections of Penal Code - The court found no illegal confinement as the alleged detenue willingly eloped and entered into a valid marriage, thus dismissing the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought habeas corpus for his daughter, alleging illegal confinement by respondents. After investigation, the daughter was found with the 3rd respondent, stating she had eloped willingly after a customary marriage.

Finding of the Court:

The court determined the alleged detenue was living with the 3rd respondent by her own will, after a valid marriage. The court concluded there was no illegal confinement.

Issues: Whether the alleged detenue was illegally confined against her will by respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The marriage between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent was valid, and her voluntary choice to live with him negated any claims of illegal confinement.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the alleged detenue to live with the 3rd respondent.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is the father of a girl aged 18 years, namely Miss.Dilna. He is approaching this court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of Miss.Dilna and to set her at liberty, based on an allegation that she is being illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4.

2. According to the petitioner, Miss.Dilna (hereinafter referred as the 'alleged detenue') is missing from his house since 24.02.2016, and despite registration of a case by the 2nd respondent, no effective steps for tracing out the alleged detenue is being taken. It is stated that the petitioner has got reliable information that alleged the detenue is in the custody of the 3rd W.P.(Crl.) No.83 of 2016 2 respondent. The 4th respondent is impleaded since he is a friend and companion of the 3rd respondent, who is actively conniving with the 3rd respondent in keeping the alleged detenue under confinement. The petitioner expressed an appreciation that life of the alleged detenue is in danger, raising an allegation that the 3rd respondent is a person of criminal back ground, having connections with unscrupulous elements. It is stated that the petitioner is receiving threatening calls from the 3rd respondent and his friends, warning against approaching the Police against abduction of his daughter. It is raising a specific allegation that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement of respondents 3 and 4 against her free will, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Despite service of notice issued from this court, nobody appeared on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Therefore this court directed the 2nd respondent to intensify the investigation of the case registered and to trace out and to produce the alleged detenue. Subsequently, when the case is taken up for W.P.(Crl.) No.83 of 2016 3 consideration on 11.03.16, the alleged detenue was produced before this court. When we interacted, she said that she was in love with 3rd respondent and she went along with him on her own will, on 24.02.2016. According to her, even before that a customary marriage was solemnized with the 3rd respondent on 20.02.2016 at “Kathirur Sreenarayana Mandiram”, in accordance with rites and ceremonies prevailing in the community. She said that both of them were living together at different places like, Guruvayoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur, Bangalore, etc. On coming to know about the case registered, she appeared before 2nd respondent on 04.03.2016 and was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Koothuparamba on that day. It is said that the learned Magistrate had set her at liberty to go along with the 3rd respondent, noticing that a marriage has already been solemnized between them. It is said that she is at present staying along with the 3rd respondent at his house. The alleged detenue expressed her strong determination to continue marital life with the W.P.(Crl.) No.83 of 2016 4

3rd respondent. She is not at all willing to go back to the parental house along with the petitioner.

4. Having found that the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent are living together on the basis of a marriage already solemnized, we permitted the alleged detenue to go along with the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent was directed to take steps to register the marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 and to produce proof in that respect.

5. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the 3rd respondent and the alleged detenue appeared in person. Copy of the 'Certificate of Marriage' issued by the Local Registrar of Marriages, Kathirur Grama Panchayat, is produced for our perusal. It is evident that, marriage solemnized between the alleged detenue and the 3rd respondent on 20.02.16 at “Kathiroor Sreenarayana Guru Smaraka Mandiram”, was registered before the Local Registrar, on 21.03.2016.

6. From the facts enumerated as above, it is W.P.(Crl.) No.83 of 2016 5 evident that the alleged detenue is at present living alon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top