Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner seeking release of his alleged fiancée held by parents. Court found no basis for confinement allegations as detenue voluntarily stayed with parents and denied cohabitation. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2018
PETITIONER:
ARAFA E.K., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KAREEM, 12/203, NEAR KOVVAPADAM RD, NEAR COCHIN COLLEGE, MATTANCHERRY.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSEPH PAUL, AGED 60 YEARS, 9/81, NJALLATHUVAYALIL, KUNNUMBAGAM, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 507.
2 BENNY PAUL, AGED ABOUT 53, W/O.JOSEPH PAUL, 9/81, NJALLATHUVAYALIL, KUNNUMBAGAM, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 507.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 507.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL R3 & R4 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI K.B.RAMANAND
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2018 : 2 :
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
The petitioner is approaching this Court
seeking a writ of Habeas corpus for commanding production of the corpus of Ms.Rosy Maria Paul (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged detenue'), based on an allegation that the parents of the alleged detenue, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, are detaining her against her free will.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner and the alleged detenue are in love and they have taken a decision to solemnize their marriage under provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Accordingly, the marriage was solemnized before the Marriage Officer, Kochi on 20.10.2018. Ext.P1 Certificate of Marriage is produced in proof of that. According to the petitioner, after
WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2018 : 3 :
the marriage, the petitioner and the detenue lived together till 26.10.2018. On that day she went to her parental home promising that she will return within 2 days. But thereafter she has not turned up and the petitioner could not contact her since her mobile phone remained switched off. It is stated that, the respondents 1 and 2 are not permitting the petitioner to have any contact with the alleged detenue. Alleging that the detenue is under illegal confinement of the respondents 1 and 2, the above writ petition is filed.
3. On receipt of notice from this Court, the respondents 1 and 2 appeared and produced the alleged detenue before this Court. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented through a lawyer. When we interacted with the alleged detenue, she confessed about the marriage solemnized as per Ext.P1. But she had emphatically denied the allegation of cohabitation. She said that the marriage was not
WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2018 : 4 :
consummated nor the petitioner and the alleged detenue had cohabited at any point of time. According to her, she was staying in a hostel at the time when the marriage was solemnized. According to the alleged detenue, she is now staying with her parents in the parental home, on her own will and wish. She had emphatically denied the allegations of illegal confinement. She said that she is not intending to continue any relationship with the petitioner and that she had already taken steps to nullify the marriage.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the alleged detenue had already moved before the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.2513/2018 for getting the marriage nullified.
Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not find any basis for the allegations of illegal confinement. Consequently, the writ petition fails
WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2018 : 5 :
and the same is hereby dismissed. The alleged detenue is set at liberty to go along with respondents 1 and 2, as desired by her.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
Bb
WP(Crl.).No. 439 of 2018 : 6 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE OF THE PETITIONER AND DETENUE DATED 20/10/2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
P.A. To Judge
Bb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was illegal confinement of the alleged detenue by the parents.
Whether the writ of Habeas corpus seeking release of the alleged detenue has merit.
Arafa E.K.
Joseph Paul
Benny Paul
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjirapally
The Sub Inspector of Police, Mattancherry
C.K. Abdul Rehim
T.V. Anilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
