Dismissed

Omana Raju v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC10 Dec 2010WP(Crl.)/459/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the release of her adult daughter, who was allegedly detained by fiancé's family. Finding the daughter was an educated adult with clear decisional autonomy desiring marriage, the court dismissed the writ, permitting her to leave with the fiancé subject to undertakings regarding education and registered marriage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner dismissed. Detenue permitted to leave court with the 3rd respondent and parents subject to undertakings regarding marriage and education.

Omana Raju Vs State of Kerala and Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶3

WP(Crl.).No. 459 of 2010(S) ---------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

¶6

OMANA RAJU, VARAPPURATH PADINJARETHIL, KALLOOPPARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 583.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

¶11

BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶12

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶13

KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION-689 587.

¶14

AKHIL MOHANAN @ KALESH, S/O.MOHANAN, PAZHUKKAMODI THEKKESSERIL HOUSE, P.O.PENNUKKARA, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, 689 520.

¶15

MOHANAN, PAZHUKKAMODI THEKKESSERIL HOUSE, P.O.PENNUKKARA, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, 689 520.

¶16

PONNAMMA, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA-690 108.

¶17

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR FOR R3-5 & DETENUE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶20

------------------------------------------------W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010-S

¶21

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Basant,J.

¶24

This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the matter resting with the order dated 6/12/10. 2. The petitioner had come to this Court with the petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce her daughter `Rini Raju', aged above 19 years (date of birth - 23/1/1991. She has completed her Plus 2 Course. She is a student of the second year GNM Course (Nursing) at Bangalore. She was found missing from 7/11/10 from Tumkur in Karnataka State where she was attending her college. The petitioner apprehended that her daughter - the alleged detenue, was being illegally detained and confined by respondent No.3, a

¶25

W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010 -: 2 :-

¶26

young man employed at Bangalore in active collusion with his father - the 4^th respondent and his aunt - the 5^th respondent. Complaints were made before the police; but the police did not

¶27

succeed in tracing the alleged detenue. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court on 22/11/10.

¶28

This petition was admitted on 23/11/10. Subsequent directions were issued from time to time. The alleged detenue was produced. In an attempt to arrive at a harmonious settlement, the alleged detenue was persuaded to accept the request to go with her mother - the petitioner. She has spent some time along with the petitioner. Thereafter, when she came to Court, we found her in a state of absolute confusion. Therefore we directed that she be accommodated at the Santhinikethan Hostel from 6/12/10 to this date.

¶29

Today, when the case came up for consideration in the Chamber at 1.45 p.m., the petitioner is present. Her son - the elder brother of the alleged detenue Rini Raju, is also present. She is represented by a counsel. The alleged detenue has been brought to Court from the Santhinikethan Hostel. Respondents 3 and 4 are personally present. The wife of the 4^th respondent i.e., the mother of the 3^rd respondent Mrs. Savithri is also

¶30

W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010 -: 3 :-

¶31

present. Respondents 3 and 4 are represented by a counsel.

¶32

We interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her mother and brother. Later we interacted with them in the presence of respondent No.3 and his parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader were also present.

¶33

We find that the alleged detenue has come with clear idea today. She states that she has been having discussions over the telephone with her brother and the 3^rd respondent regularly after the last date of posting. She is today firm in her decision that she wants to go along with the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th respondent and Savithri, the parents of the 3^rd respondent, submit that they are willing to accept the alleged detenue as their daughter-in-law. The 3^rd respondent also asserts that he wants to get married to the alleged detenue. It is asserted before us by the 3^rd respondent and his parents that they have no objection in the alleged detenue continuing as a Christian. They will not insist on conversion of the alleged detenue, it is undertaken. They further submit that the alleged detenue shall continue her education at Sri Sidhartha College of Nursing, Tumkur, where she is a second year student of the GNM Course.

¶34

W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010 -: 4 :-

¶35

The alleged detenue as well as the 3^rd respondent and his parents agree that the alleged detenue shall complete her GNM Course and her academic curriculum shall not be interrupted. The 3^rd respondent and his parents further agree that they do not want the parents of the alleged detenue to give her any property or ornaments and that she shall not in any way be vexed or harassed for her inability/failure to bring any ornaments/money at the time of marriage. It is further agreed that inasmuch as no legal marriage has taken place between the 3^rd respondent and the alleged detenue - they being Hindu and Christian respectively, they shall get their marriage solemnized and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Notice has already been given and the marriage can now be solemnized on any date on or after 25/12/10. It is stipulated by the alleged detenue, the 3^rd respondent and his parents that till then the alleged detenue and the 3^rd respondent shall not live as husband and wife and that they shall start cohabitation as husband and wife only after their marriage is solemnized and registered. Till then, she shall be accommodated at the house of the maternal grandmother of the 3^rd respondent at Mamoottil House, Kunnam, Mavelikkara. The alleged detenue and the 3^rd respondent agree that they shall produce the certificate of

¶36

W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010 -: 5 :-

¶37

marriage issued under the Special Marriage Act along with copy thereof on the next date of posting if sufficient time is given by the Court.

¶38

The petitioner and her son, the brother of the alleged detenue, are unable to reconcile themselves to the idea of marriage between the 3^rd respondent and the alleged detenue. But they state before us that in the wake of the firm decision by the alleged detenue, they have no objection in the Court permitting her to return from Court along with the 3^rd respondent.

¶39

In a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. In this case we are satisfied from the sequence of events and responses of the alleged detenue, who is an adult major educated woman, that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. We accept her decisional autonomy. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition.

¶40

In the result:

¶41

(a) This writ petition is dismissed.

¶42

(b) The alleged detenue - Rini Raju is permitted to leave this Court along with the 3^rd respondent and his parents.

¶43

W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010 -: 6 :-

¶44

(c) We accept the undertaking given by the alleged detenue, the 3^rd respondent and his parents that the alleged detenue shall complete her GNM Course and that her educational career shall not be interrupted.

¶45

(d) We accept the statement of the alleged detenue, the 3^rd respondent and his parents that the marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act between the alleged detenue and the 3^rd respondent shall be solemnized and registered on 25/12/10 or on a date immediately following that. We accept their undertaking that until such marriage is solemnized and registered, the 3^rd respondent and the alleged detenue shall not cohabit as husband and wife. She will be accommodated in the house of her maternal grandmother at Mavelikkara.

¶46

(e) We further accept the undertaking given by the 3^rd respondent and the alleged detenue that the certificate of marriage along with copy thereof issued under the Special Marriage Act shall be placed before us on the next date of posting. We grant them time till 17/1/2011. On that day we would like to be assured that the alleged detenue has resumed her course of education at the Sri Sidhartha College of Nursing, Tumkur, Bangalore. We are informed by the petitioner and her

¶47

W.P.(Cri) No.459 of 2010 -: 7 :-

¶48

son that the entire tuition fee payable for the entire course has already been paid to the College and that they have no objection in the alleged detenue continuing her education on the strength of the fee already paid by them.

¶49

Call on 17/1/2011.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/-

¶52

K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)

¶53

Nan/ HO

¶54

//true copy//

¶55

P.S. to Judge

Omana Raju v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omana Raju v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saheer Vs Asmabi

Mini Ashok Madhav Vs Ashok Madhav

Sri.Abdu Rahiman Vs Chatheri Hussain Musaliyar & Others

Jenso Jose Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Bennichan @ Chacko Vs K.X.Mary @ Usha and Another

Deepak Kalathil Vs Saritha S.Menon and Another