Sundaran vs The Director General of Police 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 daughter Swapna, aged above 20 years (date of birth - 04.08.1990). According to the petitioner, his daughter Swapna, the alleged detenue, was missing from 26.10.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his daughter, the alleged detenue, was under the illegal confinement and detention of the 5th respondent. A crime was registered by the police. But the police did not succeed in tracing the alleged detenue. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 02.11.2010.

The petition was admitted on 03.11.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The matter was adjourned to this date.

Today when the case is called, the petitioner is not present. He is represented by his counsel.

The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions and after perusing the case diary submits that there is no element of illegal detention or confinement in the facts and circumstances of this case. The police had traced the alleged detenue. She was produced before the learned Magistrate on 03.11.2010. Before the learned Magistrate it was submitted by the alleged detenue that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. According to her, she is in love with the 5th respondent. She has got married to the 5th respondent. She is residing with her legally wedded husband. The learned Magistrate, accepting the submissions of the alleged detenue, had permitted her to act in accordance with her will. Before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate had recorded that the petitioner herein was present, but he did not avail of the opportunity to speak to his daughter. He had stated before the learned Magistrate that "he does not want to talk with the girl". The alleged detenue continues to live with the 5th respondent as his wife after 03.11.2010.

The petitioner is not present before Court today and the inference is irresistible that the petitioner does not any more want to prosecute this Writ Petition. No explanation is offered as to why the petitioner, who was available before the learned Magistrate on 03.11.2010, has not come to Court today.

We interacted with the alleged detenue in Court. The alleged detenue stated before us that she is not under any illegal detention or confinement. She has got married to the 5th respondent. She is residing happily with the 5th respondent, it was submitted.

A certificate of marriage issued by the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayat, is produced. Certificate No.A2/1196/2010 dated 08.11.2010 reveals that the marriage between the alleged detenue and the 5th respondent has been solemnised on 03.11.2010 and has been registered on 03.11.2010.

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 confinement or detention. We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly from the assertions made by the alleged detenue before us that she is not under illegal detention or confinement. She is an adult woman. We respect her decisional autonomy. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no directions under Article 226 of the Constitution deserves to be issued.

In the result:

a) This Writ Petition is dismissed;

b) The alleged detenue is permitted to leave the Court along with the 5th respondent as desired by her.

The certificate of marriage is returned to the 5th respondent, who has placed it before us for our perusal through the learned Government Pleader.