High Court of KeralaWP(Crl.)/314/2015disposed of

Fasil Haneefa v. The District Police Chief

2015-08-03Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015/12TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(Crl.).No. 314 of 2015 (S) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------ FASIL HANEEFA, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. HANEEFA, RAMANATH VEETTIL, ELAVALLY DESOM, ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR-680 511. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

-------------------------

1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR - 680001.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680503.

3. SHAMSUDHEEN, MULLATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, KANJIRATHINGAL DESOM, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, KATTAKAMBAL P.O., THRISSUR 680544.

4. JISHA K.A.

W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, MULLATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, KANJIRATHINGAL DESOM, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, KATTAKAMBAL P.O., THRISSUR 680544. R1&2 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

:2:

WP(Crl.).No. 314 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------- :

EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER'S MARRIAGE CEREMONY. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-5-15 ISSUED BY LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGE, KATTAKAMBAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/7/2015 MADE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- :

NIL // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss

C.K. ABDUL REHIM & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is approaching this court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of his wife Miss.Shabna M.S., based on an allegation that she is being illegally detained by respondents 3 and 4 who are her parents.

Averments in the writ petition are to the effect that, the petitioner had married the alleged detenue as per religious rites on 18.05.2015 at Juma Masjid, Kanjirathinkal. The marriage solemnized was registered with the Marriage Registering Authority at Kattakambal Grama Panchayat, on 28.05.2015, as evidenced from Ext.P2 certificate. It is stated that subsequently the petitioner went abroad in connection with his employment, on 26.06.2015. He was constantly interacting with the alleged detenue thereafter. But subsequently the alleged detenue informed the petitioner that, the respondents 3 and 4 are compelling her for another marriage and that they are not permitting the alleged detenue to have any contact with the petitioner. Under such circumstances the petitioner came back to his native place. But all his attempts to see the alleged detenue was

restrained by respondents 3 and 4. Under such circumstances, based on a specific allegation that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement of respondents 3 and 4, this writ petition is filed. 3.

Based on notice issued by this court the respondents 3 and 4 entered appearance through counsel and produced the alleged detenue before this court on 20.07.2015. When we interacted with the alleged detenue it is revealed that, even though ceremonies of the marriage was solemnized as per religious rites, there occurred no co-habitation. According to her, the relationship became strained due to some dispute arose during the interactions over telephone. However, she said that she is not willing to go with the petitioner or to lead a marital life with him.

On 20.07.2015, the case was adjourned on the basis of an appeal made by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the difference of opinion between the parties to the marriage and their families can be sorted out through mediation, on the intervention of responsible relatives of both the families. But when the case is taken up on today, both sides submitted that no settlement could be arrived. We interacted with the alleged detenue, again on today. There is no change in her attitude, and she is sticking on to what was submitted on 20.07.2015 before this court. She categorically said that she is not

under any illegal confinement of respondents 3 and 4 and she desires to go along with them to the parental house.

Under the above mentioned circumstances we are convinced that there is no illegal confinement of the alleged detenue as alleged in the writ petition. She is living with her parents on her own will. Hence there exists no circumstances warranting interference of this court to issue any writ of Habeas Corpus. However, we make it clear that the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies with respect to dispute if any arising out of the marriage solemnised, in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

Sd/- C.K. Abdul Rehim, Judge Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge //True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss