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
18 paragraphs · 408 wordsGopinath, J
This writ petition has been filed by the father of one Ankita S., on the allegation that she is kept under illegal custody of one Sajadsha, the 5th
respondent. It is stated that the aforesaid Ankita was forcefully taken away by the 5th respondent when she had gone to her college for an
examination. In view of the averments in the writ petition, we had requested to the learned Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondents 1 to 4 to
ensure the presence of the aforesaid Ankita in order to ascertain whether she was under the illegal custody of the 5th respondent.
2. Today when the matter was taken up we interacted through video conferencing with the petitioner and his wife, parents of Ankita, the 5th
respondent as also with Ankita herself. Though the petitioner and his wife had interacted with their daughter Ankita she expressed her desire to live
with the 5th respondent. She also stated that she intends to marry the 5th respondent and that they had already given notice of intended marriage
under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. She further states that the marriage could not be registered despite notice being given on account of
the fact that original documents to prove her date of birth etc are in the custody of her parents.
3. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the aforesaid Ankita is a major. She is stated to be 22 years of age. She is quite firm in her conviction
to marry the 5th respondent and to live with him. She is therefore not under illegal custody as alleged in the writ petition. The petitioner, the father of
Ankita has undertaken before us that he does not intend to prevent the marriage of Ankita with the 5th respondent by holding on to any certificate
belonging to Ankita. He has also very fairly agreed before us that he will hand over the originals of certificates such as the SSLC Book etc to the
SHO, Kayamkulam Police Station, Kayamkulam (the 4th respondent herein) on 07-06-2021, before 11 a.m. This offer of the petitioner is recorded and
the 4th respondent is directed to receive the certificates handed over by the petitioner under receipt and hand over the same to the aforesaid Ankita
after obtaining a receipt from her.
In the circumstances noticed above, a writ of Habeas Corpus will not issue. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.