Renji Ganesh T. vs Varghese Eapen and Others

R. Basant, J.—The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Liji Sara Varghese, a young woman aged above 21 years (date of birth 15.3.1989). She is an Engineering Graduate. The petitioner is a B.A. (Economics) Graduate. According to the petitioner, he and the alleged detenue are in love. They had decided to get married. They belonged to different religions. Their marriage was solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 20.7.2010. Even after the registration of their marriage, they continued to reside separately. Ultimately on 30.9.2010 the alleged detenue joined the petitioner and they went to the house of the petitioner. The parents of the alleged detenue came to know of this. Thereafter the alleged detenue returned to the house of her parents. Respondents 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the alleged detenue. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue is being detained and confined illegally by her parents, respondents 1 and 2, after 30.9.2010. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 7.10.2010.

This petition was admitted on 8.10.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date.

Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. Along with him his father Ganapathy has also come to Court. The petitioner is represented by a counsel.

Respondents 1 and 2 have come to Court. They are represented by a counsel. Along with them the alleged detenue Liji Sara Varghese has also come to Court.

As the alleged detenue has come to the Court along with/in the custody of her parents, respondents 1 and 2, who allegedly are detaining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for anyone to influence her. She stated before us that she would like to interact with the petitioner for a short period of time. That opportunity was granted.

After the lunch recess we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. Subsequently we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of her parents, the petitioner and his father. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader were present.

The alleged detenue states before us that she does not now want to return along with the petitioner. She is not under illegal confinement of any one. Her parents are not detaining or confining her. She is residing along with respondents 1 and 2 voluntarily and as desired by her. To a specific question by us, she categorically states that she does not want to return with the petitioner. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the alleged detenue has already filed O.P. 1068 of 2010 before the Family Court, Alappuzha for declaration of nullity of marriage allegedly solemnised between her and the petitioner herein.

The petitioner submits that he is in genuine and true love with the alleged detenue and that he does not accept her present statements. According to him, the alleged detenue is now speaking in this manner succumbing to the influence and pressure of her parents. He is willing to wait. He is certain that the alleged detenue shall change her attitude and come and join him. In these circumstances the petitioner submits that appropriate orders may be passed.

Respondents 1 and 2 state that they are willing to take the alleged detenue along with them as desired by her.

In a petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus we are primarily concerned with the question whether the alleged detenue is under any illegal detention or confinement. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal detention or confinement. The alleged detenue is an adult major woman she having crossed the age of 21 = years. She is an educated person, having completed her B.Tech Degree Course. We accept her decisional autonomy. We are satisfied that the request of the alleged detenue to go along with her parents can be accepted.

The alleged detenue states that some articles belonging to her are in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner readily agrees to return the same. The father of the petitioner states that he had repeatedly warned both his son and the alleged detenue that only if they truly desired the relationship they need to proceed with such relationship. He is not in any way responsible for allegedly compelling the alleged detenue to have relationship with the petitioner. He also agrees that whatever articles are there shall be returned by the petitioner to the alleged detenue at the Chengannur Police Station at 7 p.m. tomorrow. The petitioner states that a mobile phone belonging to him is with the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue agrees to return the same to the petitioner at the Chengannur Police Station at 7 p.m. tomorrow. Due acknowledgment can be taken by either side of whatever articles are handed over.

In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is dismissed.

b) The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court along with respondents 1 and 2 as desired by her.

c) We record the undertaking of the petitioner and the alleged detenue to exchange whatever articles belonging to them are available with them against proper acknowledgment at the Chenganur Police Station at 7 p.m. tomorrow.