Muraleedharan K.B. vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others

R. Basant, J.—This judgment must be read in continuation of the order dated 25/8/2009. As already directed vide order dated 25/8/2009, the alleged detenue, who had gone from court on the last day along with her parents, has come back to court. The petitioner and his wife are present. Their counsel is also present. Respondents 4 and 5 are present. Their counsel is also present.

The alleged detenue Ms. Manju Lekshmi stated before us in court when the case was called that she does not want to get married to the 4th respondent, the son of the 5th respondent and that she does not want to have anything to do with him now. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of her parents, to ensure that she gives her response willingly and voluntarily without being influenced by anyone, we allowed Ms. Manju Lekshmi to remain in the Chambers with opportunity for no one to interact with her.

After the lunch recess, we interacted with Ms. Manju Lekshmi. She states before us that she has considered all the relevant aspects and has now come to the conclusion that she does not want to marry or have anything to do with the 4th respondent. We have interacted with Ms. Manju Lakshmi and have made all possible efforts to ascertain whether she is being compelled or coerced to make such a statement. She is a woman aged above 20 years, she having been born on 07/08/1989. We are satisfied that she has taken an informed and firm decision not to marry the 4th respondent or have anything to do with him hereafter. We interacted with her individually initially and later in the presence of respondents 4 and his counsel. We are now convinced that the stand taken by the alleged detenue is taken by her willingly, voluntarily and not under the influence or coercion by anyone. She is an Engineering student and we respect her wishes. She informs the court that she has already given notice to the Marriage Officer that she does not want to proceed with the proposed marriage.

The 4th respondent and his counsel submit that the 4th respondent had not, in any way, influenced the decision of the alleged detenue to go with the 4th respondent. They are also willing to accept the decision and judgment of the alleged detenue. If she does not want to get married to the 4th respondent or have anything to do with him, the 4th respondent in all humility accepts the said decision. But the 4th respondent laments that he has been unnecessarily constrained to go through a lot of inconvenience and ordeal because of the attitude of the alleged detenue.

The alleged detenue submits that a gold ring belonging to her has been put on the 4th respondent and that she is having the certificates/identity cards of the 4th respondent. Parties are in agreement and they agree that the gold ring shall be returned by the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within a period of seven days. The petitioner and the alleged detenue agree to return the identity cards and the certificates also within a period of seven days to the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent. Both sides submit that no further specific directions are necessary and they shall work out this arrangement through their respective counsel. The petitioner and the alleged detenue submit that they have no complaint or grievance against the 4th respondent and they have no objection against the police closing the proceedings (crime No. 617/09 of Chengannur police station) presently initiated with respect to the disappearance of the alleged detenue. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police shall do the needful at the earliest. 6. This petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. The alleged detenue is permitted to return from court along with the petitioner and his wife as desired by her.