Leenet Mathew vs The Superintendent of Police

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The petitioner is the mother of one Merlin Mathew, who is allegedly missing since 2.11.2014 and according to the petitioner, her daughter is under the illegal confinement of respondents 4 and 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the marriage of her daughter has been fixed and scheduled to be solemnised on 7.1.2015. It is under that circumstances, her daughter was found missing. Therefore, in the above petition, it is prayed to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce the body of Merlin Mathew @ Jeena before this Court and set her at liberty.

By order dated 6.11.2014, when the above writ petition was admitted and issuing notice to respondents 4 and 5, they were directed to produce the daughter of the petitioner before this Court on 12.11.2014 and the respondents 1 to 3 were directed to ensure that the above named respondents have complied with the direction.

Accordingly, when the above writ petition was taken up for consideration yesterday, though the detenue along with the fourth respondent were present, the petitioner was absent and her counsel submitted that she was hospitalised at Kottiyam due to high pressure. On the basis of the above submission, we suo motu adjourned the matter and posted today so that the petitioner can arrive before this Court and to have, if necessary, interaction with her daughter. Thus, when the matter is taken today, the petitioner appeared before us. The detenue as well as respondent No. 4 are also present and we have interacted with them. We have also heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents 4 and 5.

During our interaction, the petitioner submitted before us that herself and her family members have arranged marriage for the detenue, which is scheduled to be held on 7.1.2015 and that the bridegroom suggested by them has already visited their house and he met the detenue and thus, the marriage was fixed with the consent of the detenue and at that point of time, the detenue had not disclosed the affairs between herself and the fourth respondent. So, according to the petitioner, her daughter cheated her. She is fair enough to depose before us that if her daughter-the detenue wanted to go along with the fourth respondent, let her go accordingly.

During our interaction with the detenue and the fourth respondent, they deposed before us that the detenue volunteered to go along with the fourth respondent and the family members insisted her to have a marriage with another man against her consent and wish and therefore, the detenue and the fourth respondent have decided to go together and they want to live as man and wife. It is also submitted before us that accordingly, they have made proper application for registering their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, towards which a notice has already been issued on 7.11.2014 and the period of such notice will expire on 7.12.2014 and thereafter, the marriage will be registered. So, according to the detenue, she is not under the illegal custody of anybody including respondents 4 and 5.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the fourth respondent and his mother and their family members are ready to solemnise the marriage between the detenue and the fourth respondent in any church provided the petitioner and her family members have no objection. As the counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the grievance of the petitioner is that without any valid marriage, the detenue will not be justified in residing along with the fourth respondent and hence, we put to the counsel to ascertain from the petitioner that whether she is prepared to accord sanction to solemnize the marriage in any of the church, but her reply was that she is not prepared to approve the same.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in view of the stand taken by the detenue, who is aged 23 years and a B.Tech holder, it is crystal clear that she is not under the illegal custody of anybody including respondents 4 and 5. If that be so, this Court lacks jurisdiction to conduct any further enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no orders are warranted.

In the result, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is closed as she is not under the illegal custody of anybody and the detenue is free to go according to her will and desire.