Petitioners sought habeas corpus regarding a 19-year-old girl allegedly detained by respondent 3. The Court noted the girl voluntarily stated she was not illegally confined and was choosing a partner. Finding no grounds for illegal detention, the writ petition was closed. Refers to Shafin Jahan and Anuj Garg.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(CRL.)NO.235OF2024
PETITIONERS:
1SAJEENA.A
AGED44YEARS
W/OISMAILM,MATHUVILAYIL,MIDAPPALLY,PANMANA,
EDAPPALLYCOTTA,KOLLAM,KERALA,PIN-691583
2 ISMAIL M AGED 53 YEARS
S/OMUHAMMEDKUNJUMATHUVILAYIL,MIDAPALLY,PANMANA,
EDAPPALLYCOTTA,KOLLAM,PIN-691583
BYADVS.
R.SUDARSANADEVI
SUKULKHADERZ.A
RESPONDENTS:
1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY,HOMEDEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENTSECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 6915833 SUBIN @ SUBINRAJ S/O RAVEENDRAN,AGED 26 YEARS ,THARAYIL PUTHENVEEDU,THOTTINUVADAKKU(ROADINUVADAKKU),CHAVARA,2
W.P(Crl.)No.235 of 2024
KOLLAM,PIN-691583
BYADVS.
N.SUNILJOSEPH
DIRECTORGENERALOFPROSECUTION(AG-10)
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN,SPL.G.P.TODGPANDADDL.P.P.()
SRISAIGIJACOBPALATTY,SR.GP.
THISWRITPETITION(CRIMINAL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON09.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(Crl.)No.235 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
Petitioners herein are the parents of the ‘corpus’ (Miss. X for the sake of brevity). The petitioners assert that the alleged detenu is just 19 years of age and she has been abducted by the party respondent and she is kept under illegal confinement. The petitioners assert that the party respondent is a person with criminal antecedents and reference is made to Exts.P5 to P7 FIRs, registered against him. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to produce the alleged detenu before this Court and set her at liberty.
4
W.P(Crl.)No.235 of 2024
03.04.2024, it was stated before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent that the parties have already applied for registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act .
that the pivotal purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge. The role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice, and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. What is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, provided the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the inquiry and determination
1 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368
5
W.P(Crl.)No.235 of 2024
have to come to an end.
hold as under in paragraph 31 of the judgment
“31. … It is their life; subject to constitutional,
statutory, and social interdicts—a citizen of India should be
allowed to live her life on her own terms.”
allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a partner. As she has stated that she is not under illegal confinement, nothing further
survives in this matter.
The writ petition is closed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
SD/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE
DCS
2 Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and others, [2008 (3) SCC 1]
6
W.P(Crl.)No.235 of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 235/2024
PETITIONEREXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 |
THETRUECOPYOFTHESECONDACERTIFICATE OF THE DETENUE |
RY |
SCHOOL |
LEA |
VING |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exhibit P2 |
THETRUECOPYOFTHERATIONPETITIONER |
CAR |
DOF |
THE |
1ST |
Exhibit P3 |
THE AADHAR CARD OF THE 1ST PETITI |
ONER |
|||
Exhibit P4 |
THE AADHAR CARD OF THE 2ND PETITI |
ONER |
|||
Exhibit P5 |
TTRUECOPYOFTHEFIRFILEDRESPONDENTANDNUMBEREDASREGISTERED BY THE CHAVARA POLICE |
AGA0189DATED |
INSTOF27.1. |
THE20242024. |
3RDAS |
Exhibit P6 |
TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRFILEDAGAANDNUMBEREDAS0176OF2024CHAVARA POLICE DATED 25.01.2024. |
INSTAS |
3RDRREGIS |
ESPONTERED |
DENTBY |
Exhibit P7 |
TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRFILEDAGAANDNUMBEREDAS2115OF2023CHAVARA POLICE DATED 27.12.2023. |
INSTAS |
3RDRREGIS |
ESPONTERED |
DENTBY |
Exhibit P8 |
TRUE COPY OF THE MAN MISSING COM1STPETITIONERBEFORETHES16.02.2024 |
PLAINHO |
T FILECHAVAR |
D BY AD |
THEATED |
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS |
|||||
Exhibit R3(a) |
Truecopyofthemarriage18.02.2024 issued by the Dewasom Sree Bhadrakali Devi Temple , Cha |
certSecrvara |
ificatetary, |
edArra |
atedkkal |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether issuance of directions is necessary to produce the detenu before the Court given her statement of lawful choice.
Whether parental objections can override the adult's right to choose a partner under Articles 19 and 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.Referred¶34
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 · Who else cites this
Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and othersReferred¶40
Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and others, [2008 (3) SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Sajeena.A
Ismail M
State of Kerala
The Station House Officer Chavara
Subin @ Subinraj S/o Raveendran
Raja Vijayaraghavan
P. M. Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court