MUHAMMED AJMAL v. SIVADASAN

R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.**********************W.P(Crl.)No.107 of 2010*********************Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlierorders dated 26.3.2010 and 29.3.2010.2.The petitioner has come to this Court with thispetition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, traceand produce Sruthi, the alleged detenue, a young girl aged about19 years- she having been born on 10.3.1991. She is a Hindu byreligion. The petitioner is a young man aged 22 years. Hebelongs to the religious faith of Islam. The petitioner had fallenin love with the alleged detenue Sruthi. They had eloped. Acrime was registered under the caption 'man missing' as crimeNo.547/09 of Malappuram Police Station. In the course ofinvestigation, the alleged detenue was traced. She wasproduced before the Magistrate. She stated before theMagistrate that she was not kidnapped; but expressed herwillingness to go with her father, the first respondent herein. Accordingly, the alleged detenue was living with respondents 1and 2- her parents from 7.12.2009. 3.Later notice was given by the petitioner and thealleged detenue of their intention to get married under the WPCrl.107/20102Special Marriage Act. The petitioner came to the Courtcomplaining that the alleged detenue, an adult major woman, was being illegally detained by respondents 1 and 2.4.This petition was filed on 22.3.2010. It was admittedon 26.3.2010. The alleged detenue was produce before Court on29.3.2010. As directed by the Court, she continued to reside at'Thanal Balasramam' in Thrissur District.5.Today when the case is called, the alleged detenuewas produced. The petitioner is present. Respondents 1 and 2are present. The alleged detenue initially refused to interactwith her parents. This Court directed the alleged detenue tomeet her parents-respondents 1 and 2 and to interact with them. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 were permitted to interactwith the alleged detenue in the Chamber.6.After lunch recess, at 1.45 p.m., we interacted withthe alleged detenue alone initially. Later, we interacted with herin the presence of her parents-respondents 1 and 2.Subsequently, we interacted with her in the presence of thepetitioner. Later, we interacted with all of them. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1and 2 , the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel WPCrl.107/20103for the alleged detenue were all present at such final interaction.7.The alleged detenue asserts that she wants to getmarried to the petitioner and she wants to leave the Court alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has alreadymade arrangements to get the marriage solemnised under theSpecial Marriage Act. He asserts that he does not want thealleged detenue to convert from her religion -Hinduism and isprepared to marry her under the Special Marriage Act. Thepetitioner submits that his parents will also accept him and thealleged detenue as legally married couple. He is well employedand has the ability to support the alleged detenue after hismarriage with her. The petitioner is aged 22 years. Accordingto him, he is working as a Distribution Sales Officer of PhilipsProducts and gets an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensem.8.Respondents 1 and 2 are unable to accept therelationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. They were given ample opportunity to interact with the allegeddetenue and persuade her to go with them. They are nowconvinced that the alleged detenue will not accept their requestto go with them. This Court also advised the alleged detenue togo with her parents and come back to the Court on the next date WPCrl.107/20104of posting(after 10 days) so that she can have interactions withher parents and try to persuade them to accept her point of view. But, she does not agree and accept the said suggestion.9.The alleged detenue is an adult major woman. Werespect her decisional autonomy. Respondents 1 and 2 assertthat they are not able to accept the relationship. Their inabilityto accept the relationship notwithstanding, we are satisfied thatthe wishes of the alleged detenue have got to be respected.10.The petitioner points out that notice has already beengiven under the Special Marriage Act to get his marriage withthe alleged detenue solemnised. That application was givenbefore the sub Registrar's Office, Chalappuram, Kozhikode on31.3.2010. He submits that he shall get the marriage solemnisedand registered within a day or two and produce the certificate ofmarriage before this Court.11.We are in these circumstances satisfied that thealleged detenue can be permitted to go with the petitioner fromCourt notwithstanding the reluctance of respondents 1 and 2 toaccept such course. We are, however, satisfied that thesubmission of the petitioner that he shall produce the certificateof marriage under the Special Marriage Act before this Court by WPCrl.107/20105the next date of posting can be accepted. The certificate ofmarriage along with a Photostat copy thereof for being furnishedto respondents 1 and 2 shall be produced before the Court by thepetitioner and the alleged detenue on the next date of posting.12.In the result:(a)this Writ Petition is allowed.(b)the alleged detenue Sruthi, born on 10.3.1991 ispermitted to leave the Court along with the petitionerMuhammed Ajmal as desired by her.(c)We accept the undertaking of the petitioner and thealleged detenue that certificate of marriage issued underthe Special Marriage Act shall be produced before thisCourt along with a copy thereof by the next date ofposting.13.Call this petition again on 02.6.2010 for production ofthe marriage certificate. The petitioner and the alleged detenueshall also be personally present before Court on that date. Issue copy of the judgment today itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)dsn/(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)