Vijayan vs Akhil @ Vishnu and Others

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Read our order dated 28/11/2012. Today, the first respondent produced before us the original of a certificate issued by the Alumuttil Kutumbakshethra Kshemasabha under the signature of its Treasurer representing the Secretary. The certificate is very clear to the effect that the marriage between vismaya vijayan, the alleged detenue, and the first respondent was solemnised in accordance with the rites and rituals of the Hindu religion in the Alumuttil family temple on 16/11/2012 between 10 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. The petitioner requests us that his daughter vismaya vijayan be directed to accompany him and stay with him and his wife. But, vismaya vijayan is not in a mood to agree. According to her, she loves her parents but the first respondent is her husband and she will go to her parents'' house only along with the first respondent. The only question which arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the writ of Habeas Corpus sought for is liable to be issued. In fact relief No.(i) sought for was a direction to produce the body of the alleged detenue before this court. That relief stands virtually granted. we find that vismaya vijayan and the first respondent are duly wedded husband and wife. Their marriage having been solemnised in Alumuttil family temple as claimed by the first respondent.

Under the above circumstances, we do not find warrant for issuing further directions. It is open to vismaya vijayan to stay either in the house of the first respondent or in the house of her parents.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

This writ petition under Article 226 is filed by the petitioner, the father of an 18 year old girl by name vismaya vijayan, who complains that his daughter was abducted by the first respondent and respondents 2 and 3, his parents, and is presently being illegally detained by them in their residence.

On considering this writ petition for admission we, on 22/11/2012, passed the following order;

Not admitted. Mr. Saneer, the learned Govt. Pleader, takes notice for R4 and R5. He will seek instructions from R4 as to the present stage of the investigation conducted in Ext.P1 crime. Issue notice on admission by special messenger to R1 to R3. Those respondents are directed to produce vismaya vijayan, the daughter of the petitioner, before this court at 10.15 am on 28/11/2012 and to show cause why this order for production should not be made absolute. Post on 28/11/2012.

Accordingly, respondents 1 to 3 have produced vismaya vijayan before us today. The petitioner and his wife are also present. We interacted with each one of them in detail.

Vismaya vijayan, the alleged detenue, asserted before us that she has completed 18 years of age, her 18th birthday having fallen on 7/8/2012. According to her, she is duly wedded wife of the first respondent, their marriage having taken place at Muttam in a temple. The first respondent placed before us a receipt issued by a temple in support of his claim that his marriage with vismaya vijayan was solemnised in that temple. But, on going through that receipt, we find that the receipt does not certify that a Hindu marriage was conducted between the parties on that day. The receipt is only vazhipadu receipt and what is stated therein is that Rs. 1000/- was received from the first respondent as vazhipadu offering. of course, the word ''vivaham'' (wedding) is mentioned in a part of that receipt.

We are not convinced that a proper marriage in accordance with the rites and rituals of the Hindu religion has taken place between the first respondent and vismaya vijayan. we grant to the first respondent time till Wednesday i.e. 5/12/2012 for production of proper certificate by the authorities of the Temple for substantiating his claim that marriage between him and vismaya vijayan was duly solemnised in that temple. As we are not convinced that proper marriage has taken place between the first respondent and vismaya vijayan, we suggested to vismaya vijayan that she stays till next Wednesday (5/12/2012) along with her parents. But, she appeared to be obstinate that she will not join her parents back. Even the first respondent is not willing to allow vismaya vijayan to stay along with her parents till 5/12/2012. As we are not convinced that the marriage has taken place between the parties, we order that vismaya vijayan, the alleged detenue, be accommodated in S.N. v. Sadanam Ladies Hostel till 5/12/2012. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to make all arrangements for admission of vismaya vijayan to S.N.V. Sadanam Ladies Hostel. The Hostel Authorities are also directed to accommodate vismaya vijayan in the Hostel on condition that the requisite fees and other charges will be remitted either by vijayan, the petitioner, or by the first respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 will ensure that vismaya vijayan is brought back to this court at 10.15 a.m. on 5/12/2012. It is open to the parties also to be present before this court on that day. During vismaya vijayan''s period of stay in the Ladies Hostel, the Hostel Authorities shall allow vismaya vijayan to interact with the first respondent over telephone everyday from 7. pm. to 7.15 pm. They should also allow visitation rights to the parents of vismaya vijayan everyday during the visiting hours of the Hostel.

Handover copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties as well as Sri. Saneer the learned Government Pleader.