Sulaikha K V vs Nishad B P

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner – mother of the alleged detenue, alleges that she is being detained against her wish by the 1st respondent.

When this matter was considered by this Court on 19.04.2024, the following order was issued:

“ The alleged detenue – Kum.Husna Ummarali and the 1st respondent are present. Kum.Husna Ummarali submitted that she is voluntarily residing with the 1st respondent and that they have submitted an application before the 7th respondent – Marriage Officer & Sub Registrar showing their intention to get married as per the Special Marriage Act. Ext.P1 is the notice of intended marriage. It is further submitted that the marriage is proposed to be solemnized on 27.04.2024.

Post this case for further consideration on 30.04.2024. The parties shall appear on the next posting date.”

Today, the alleged detenue – Smt.Husna Ummarali is present before us, along with the 1st respondent. She asserts, rather unequivocally, that she is not detained by the 1st respondent; but that, on the contrary, she has married him voluntarily and even give as a copy of the Marriage Certificate, in substantiation.

The petitioner projects a cause that she believes that the 1st respondent is involved in criminal activities and that he is unemployed, thus being not in a position to take care of her daughter.

The mind of a mother certainly would be procellous in such circumstances; but we are afraid that this would not be a ground for us to intervene and to set limits on the liberties of the alleged detenue, when she says that she is not in detention and that she wants to live with the 1st respondent, who she asserts to be her legally married husband.

The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Binu.V.V.Veettil, however, submitted that his client was already filed objections against the marriage stated to have been registered by the jurisdictional Registering Officer. Obviously, this is not an arena this Court can enter; and we, therefore, leave full liberty to the petitioner to invoke any remedy that may be available to her in law, for which purpose, all contentions in that regard are left open.

As far as this writ petition is concerned, we cannot move forward because of the stand taken by the alleged detenue.

In the afore circumstances, with the above requested liberty being reserved to the petitioner, this writ petition is closed.