Subith C.N vs State Of Kerala

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ of habeas corpus seeking an order directing respondents 2 to 4 to produce the corpus of the alleged detenue, namely, Mrs. Aysha Faha, the wife of the petitioner, before this Court and release her from the illegal confinement of respondents 5 and 6 and their relatives and aids.

By order dated 05.05.2023, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and the matter was ordered to be listed on 12.05.2023.

On 12.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, respondents 5 and 6 entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel offered to produce the alleged detenue before this Court on the next posting date and they were directed to produce the alleged detenue before this Court on 16.05.2023. It is thus the alleged detenue is produced before this Court.

When this matter was taken up for consideration, we have interacted with the alleged detenue, who has categorically stated that she is not under illegal confinement of any person including respondents 5 and 6 and their relatives. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the alleged detenue, we found absolutely no grounds to issue a writ of habeas corpus in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly a judgment was dictated in open Court, dismissing the writ petition for the aforesaid reason.

After some time it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an incident had occured in the Court premises, when the alleged detenue was going along with the 5th respondent. Therefore, Registry was directed to inform the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 6 to be present in Court at 12.00 noon and the matter was taken up again at 12.10 p.m.

After considering the submissions made at the bar, we passed an order dated 16.05.2023 whereby the 2nd respondent District Police Chief, through the concerned Station House Officer, was directed to ensure the presence of the alleged detenue in Court at 2.00 p.m. The learned Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that the said respondents shall ensure the presence of the alleged detenue in Court. Registrar General was directed to get a report from the Security Officer on the aforesaid incident.

Thereafter, the matter was taken up again for consideration at 2.30 p.m. We have perused the report of the Security Officer. We have interacted with the alleged detenue, the 5th respondent-mother and also the father of the petitioner.

On a query made by this Court, the alleged detenue would submit that she was not physically attacked by respondents 5 and 6 when she was in the Court premises as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The alleged detenue would submit that she wants to go along with the petitioner. On our interaction, the father of the petitioner, who is personally present in the Court, submitted that his family has already accepted the alleged detenue and necessary steps for registering the marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act will be taken, without any delay.

From the interaction of the alleged detenue, we are unable to find out a case of illegal confinement. The alleged detenue is a major aged 19 years. This Court in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue writ of habeas corpus only if it is shown that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is dismissed for the aforesaid reason; however  recording  the  stand  taken  as  above  by  the  alleged detenue  and  also  the  submission  made  by  the  father  of  the petitioner.