High CourtsDivision Bench

Anoop Kumar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0071

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.Vinod Chandran, J · C.Jayachandran, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Crl) 576 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 303 words

C. Jayachandran, J

1.

Petitioner claims to have an intimate relationship with the alleged detenue, aged 23 years. He seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus mandating production of the alleged detenue before this Court, as also, her release. The petitioner would aver that he and the alleged detenue have planned to get married. However, the parents of the alleged detenue, who came to know about the relationship, opposed it strongly, based on the difference in the religion and for the reason that the petitioner was previously married to another woman. Pursuant to a meeting of the petitioner and the alleged detenue on 30.4.2022, the detenue's parents (respondents 3 and 4 herein), had illegally confined her. All efforts of the petitioner to contact the detenue were in vain. Ext.P1 complaint preferred before the second respondent/S.H.O evoked no response. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking the relief above referred.

2.

As per order dated 29.6.2022, we directed the second respondent/S.H.O to get a statement of the alleged detenue through a Woman Police Officer, without the presence of respondents 3 and 4 or any other family member. Such statement has been produced before us today by the second respondent, along with a report.

3.

A perusal of the detenue's statement would indicate that although she had acquaintance with the petitioner, there was no affair by and between them. The detenue would categorically state that her marriage has been fixed with another person, after obtaining her consent and that she is not under any illegal detention, whatsoever.

4.

In the light of the above statement, we find that the alleged detenue is not illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4 as alleged in the writ petition. In the absence of any illegal detention, this writ petition lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.