Chandu Raj S/o Nadarajan v State Police Chief Police Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram and others
Kerala High Court
9 October 2012
W P (Cr.). No. 502 of 2012
The Judgment was delivered by : Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
1. This writ petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner, who complains that his fiancee, Kumari Ashitha, is being illegally detained by respondents 6 to 8. Respondents 6 and 7 are Kumari Ashitha’s parents and 8th respondent is Ashitha’s uncle being the husband of her mother’s sister. According to the petitioner, he and Kumari Ashitha are decided to get married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act as they belong to different communities. Ext.P1, notice of the intended marriage, submitted before the Marriage Officer is relied on in this connection.
2. On considering this writ petition for admission, we issued notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 6 to 8. The 6th respondent was directed to produce Kumari Ashitha before this Court. Accordingly, Kumari Ashitha came to this Court today accompanied by the 7th respondent, her mother and the 8th respondent, her uncle.
3. We interacted with Kumari Ashitha in detail. She would stoutly deny the allegation that she is not a free person and is illegally detained by respondents 6 to 8. According to her, she was staying in the house of the 8th respondent as desired by herself. As regards the relationship with the petitioner, she admitted that she was in love with the petitioner. But, she had second thoughts regarding the same and she is not now interested in marrying the petitioner at all.
4. We interacted with the petitioner. According to him, even now he continues to love Kumari Ashitha and if she agrees, he is ready to marry her in continuation of Ext.P1 notice submitted to the marriage office. He told us in the presence of Kumari Ashitha that he has secured an employment at Muscat and he is capable of maintaining Kumari Ashitha if she becomes his wife.
5. Kumari Ashitha, however, is not prepared to accompany the petitioner and to marry him. The only question that we are called upon to decide in this writ petition is whether there is warrant for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the allegation that Kumari Ashitha is being illegally detained against her wishes by respondents 6 to 8. It is clear to our mind that the above question can be answered only in the negative. We answer to the above question only in the negative and dismiss the writ petition. Respondents 6 to 8, particularly the 8th respondent who was in the police department previously, are directed not to make any troubles to the peaceful life of the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to ensure that there is no trouble to the peaceful life of the petitioner and members of the petitioner’s family from respondents 6 to 8 or anybody, who is close to them.
Petition dismissed
