Dismissed

Duke.P.Pattachery v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2010WP(Crl.)/493/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking habeas corpus for the petitioner's missing daughter. The daughter appeared in court with her fiancé and parents, affirming they were legally married but awaiting religious rites. The Court found no illegal detention and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, and the alleged detainee is permitted to leave the Court with the 4th respondent and her parents.

Duke.P.Pattachery Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | 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 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶3

WP(Crl.).No. 493 of 2010(S) ---------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

¶6

DUKE P.PATTACHERY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. PUNNOOSE P.PATTACHERY, 34/2300-A, KANNAYTHU ROAD, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.PRASUN.S

¶8

RESPONDENTS: ---------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

SERIN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O. JAMES, THOTTUNGATHARA, CHAMBAKKARA, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

JAMES, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THOTTUNGATHARA, CHAMBAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

SHERLY, W/O. JAMES,

¶15

AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THOTTUNGATHARA, CHAMBAKKARA, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *************************

¶19

**W.P(Crl) No.493 of 2010 *******************************

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

BASANT, J.

¶23

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for trace and produce his daughter Sowmiya Duke, aged above 25 years (date of birth - 03.10.1985). She has completed her course of Chartered Accountancy. She is in search of a job. She was found missing from 08.12.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his daughter, the alleged detenue, was being illegally detained by the 4^th respondent in active collusion with his parents - respondents 5 and 6.

¶24

This petition was filed on 14.12.2010. It was admitted on the same day. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date.

¶25

Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. The wife of the petitioner Mrs.Stella has also come to Court along with the petitioner.

¶26

W.P(Crl) No.493 of 2010

¶27

¶28

Respondents 4 to 6 have come to Court. They are represented by a counsel. Along with them, the alleged detenue has also come to Court.

¶29

As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the company of respondents 4 to 6, who are allegedly detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with no opportunity for respondents 4 to 6 to interact with her and influence her. The petitioner and his wife wanted an opportunity to interact with the alleged detenue. We gave them such permission. The alleged detenue and her parents had such interactions during the pre lunch session.

¶30

After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently we interacted with respondents 4 to 6. Later we interacted with all of them together. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader were also present.

¶31

The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not under illegal detention or confinement of anyone. She knows the 4^th respondent. He is a Chartered Accountant by profession. They have fallen in love. They have decided to get married. They have already got their marriage solemnised and

¶32

W.P(Crl) No.493 of 2010

¶33

¶34

registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 15.05.2010. Certificate No.33/2010 dated 15.05.2010 issued by the Marriage Officer, Maradu, to confirm solemnisation and registration of their marriage is produced by the alleged detenue and the 4^th respondent.

¶35

The alleged detenue and the 4^th respondent submit that though they are legally married, they have not commenced cohabitation. They want their marriage to be solemnised in accordance with Christian religious rites. They want to live together as husband and wife only after solemnisation of marriage in accordance with Christian rites also. Till then the alleged detenue is residing with the maternal uncle of the 4^th respondent. The 5^th and 6^th respondents insist that the 4^th respondent should not cohabit with the alleged detenue before such marriage in accordance with the religious rites is performed.

¶36

Respondents 5 and 6 submit that though they were also not initially in favour of such a marriage, they have not been able to persuade the alleged detenue and their son, the 4^th respondent, and that they have ultimately succumbed to the decision of the alleged detenue and the 4^th respondent to get married to each other. Respondents 4 to 6 submit that they do

¶37

W.P(Crl) No.493 of 2010

¶38

¶39

not expect any money or ornaments or property from the petitioner in connection with the marriage and that they will be happy if the parents of the alleged detenue will also accept the marriage and bless the couple.

¶40

We did attempt to persuade the parties to come to a harmonious settlement. The alleged detenue and respondents 4 to 6 were willing to accept the course of the marriage in accordance with religious rites being performed with the blessings of the parents of the alleged detenue within a stipulated time. They had almost agreed that the alleged detenue can return along with her parents today if firm assurance is given about the date on which such marriage shall be performed.

¶41

The petitioner is unable to accept the relationship between the alleged detenue and the 4^th respondent. He submits that he is not in a position to accept the marriage between the alleged detenue and the 4^th respondent. We find the mother of the alleged detenue in a helpless situation. She has to swim with the petitioner.

¶42

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 confinement or detention. We are

¶43

W.P(Crl) No.493 of 2010

¶44

¶45

satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this petition only deserves to be dismissed.

¶46

In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) The alleged detenue Sowmiya Duke is permitted to leave the Court along with the 4^th respondent, her legally wedded husband, and his parents as desired by her.

¶47

The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 undertakes that the police shall intervene if there be any unnecessary problems created by either sides in connection with the marriage between the parties. Whoever has a genuine complaint can approach the police officials, who shall be instructed to do the needful in the matter, submits the learned Government Pleader. We accept the said submission of the learned Government Pleader.

¶48

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶49

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶50

rtr/

Duke.P.Pattachery v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duke.P.Pattachery v. State of Kerala

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

P.K.Muhammed @ Innippa Vs Palembadiyan Kodrapurathu Cheeku

Karanjiv Singh Sethi Vs Mrs.Eshwin Kaur

P.Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali Vs State of Kerala & Others

Ajayakumar @ John Vs Nisha P. @ Mary

P.Nandakumar Vs M.P.Latha