Kerala High Court
A.V.George vs State Of Kerala on 7 September, 2010
Bench: R.Basant, M.L.Joseph Francis
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 346 of 2010(S)
1. A.V.GEORGE, S/O. VAREETH, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :07/09/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
**********************
I.A.No.12340 of 2010 in
W.P(Crl.) No.346 of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
Heard. Allowed. Additional 4th respondent is impleaded. W.P(Cri) No.346 of 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Leena, an adult woman, aged 37 years (date of birth - 02.04.1973). Marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue Leena had taken place long earlier and two children - both daughters, aged 15 years and 11 years, have been born in the wedlock. The petitioner and the alleged detenue were residing along with their children. There were differences of opinion between the spouses and there was an earlier incident in which the wife went away from the matrimonial home. She was traced and they continued residence along with their children for some time. From 02.08.2010, the alleged detenue was found W.P(Crl.) No.346 of 2010 2 missing. Though Ext.P1 complaint dated 02.08.2010 was filed before the police, no action was allegedly taken by the police. It is at this juncture that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 02.09.2010.
2. On 03.09.2010 when this matter came up for admission, we were not satisfied prima facie that there are any elements of illegal confinement or detention to justify invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. The learned Government Pleader was requested to take instructions and make his submissions to enable us to take a decision on the question of admission.
3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submits that Crime No.1736 of 2010 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station has been registered. The alleged detenue was contacted and informed of the pendency of the proceedings. Accordingly she has appeared before the Court today.
4. We permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber without opportunity for any one to influence her. To our pointed question, the alleged detenue stated that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. W.P(Crl.) No.346 of 2010 3
5. After the lunch recess, we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader were present. The alleged detenue is not represented by any counsel.
6. The alleged detenue states before us categorically that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. According to her, there are justifiable reasons for her to leave her matrimonial home. One James Rajendran, an employee of the Matsyafed, now employed at Kannur had offered her assistance to set up separate residence at Kannur. According to the alleged detenue, the said James Rajendran is only a friend of hers. As she had to suffer physical and mental cruelty at her matrimonial home, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and the said James Rajendran had only helped her to find accommodation. Now she is safely accommodated at Azhikode , Kannur, in the house of one Ruseena as a paying guest. She can be contacted at her mobile number at any time by the petitioner who knows such number. The alleged detenue asserted categorically that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention and that she is now accommodated at Azhikode, W.P(Crl.) No.346 of 2010 4 Kannur, on her own free will. She is trying to secure an employment. She wants to be on her own. She wants to live independently and does not want to return to the petitioner. The alleged detenue stated before us that she is willing for any reasonable settlement regarding her marital status as also regarding the custody of the children.
7. 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 convinced now that the alleged detenue is not under any such illegal confinement or detention. She is residing as a paying guest with a family on her own volition, we are satisfied. We do not want to embark on other disputes about the nature of the relationship between the alleged detenue and the said James Rajendran, who has now been arrayed as additional 4th respondent . We need only mention that we have not intended to express any opinion on any other matter. We simply record the finding on the basis of the assertion of the alleged detenue that she is not under any illegal confinement or detention. We are satisfied that this petition can now be dismissed. W.P(Crl.) No.346 of 2010 5
8. In the result:
a) This Writ Petition is dismissed;
b) We accept the request of the alleged detenue that she
may be permitted to return alone to Azhikode, where she has now taken up residence as a paying guest with a lady by name Ruseena.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/