Mohanan, J. The petitioner, who is aged 21 years and working as Mobile Technician and who is also undergoing Distant Education for Graphics, preferred the above writ petition claiming that one 'Kavya', aged 20 years , the daughter of the 4th respondent, was in love with him and they got married at Siva Temple, Near Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram, and also stated that they resided together after the said marriage. According to the petitioner, the 4th and 5th respondents, who are none other than the father and mother's sister of the said Kavya, detained her under the illegal confinement for the last three months against the wishes of the detenue. It is also his case that even the detenue was not permitted to writ her examination. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 8/12/2014, the said Kavya informed him through her friend that her parents are going to fix her marriage with another person and under such circumstances, she will commit suicide, if the petitioner is not rescued her from the illegal confinement of the respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner, though he preferred Ext.P1 complaint before the 1st respondent, no effective action has been taken by them. Thus, according to the petitioner, his lower and wife namely the said Kavya, is under the illegal confinement of the respondents 4 and 5 and therefore, he preferred the above writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying, inter alia, to issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to immediately produce the body of Kavya before this Court and release her forthwith from the illegal detention of the respondents 4 and 5.
2. When the above writ petition came up for consideration, by order dated 12/12/2014, while issuing notice to the contesting respondents, we directed the respondents 4 and 5 to produce the said Kavya, the daughter of the 4th respondent, before this Court on this date. The respondents 2 , 3 and 6 are directed to see that the respondents 4 and 5 have complied with the said direction.
3. Thus, when the case is taken up today, the so- called detenue Kavya is produced before this Court. The petitioner is also present. We have interacted with Kavya and the petitioner. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the said Kavya were in love and their formal marriage was conducted at Siva Temple, Near Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram, and the respondents 4 and 5 are against their relationship and therefore, they unlawfully detained the said Kavya under the illegal custody. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the said Kavya is not at all interested in the petitioner and Kavya has filed an affidavit before this Court, to that effect. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 that all the averments in the writ petition are baseless and no document is produced to convince this Court that the marriage between the petitioner and the said Kavya has solemnized. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has selected a wrong way and he is creating nuisance to the 4th and 5th respondent as also against the daughter of the 4th respondent.
5. When we interacted with Kavya, she submitted before us that, except the petitioner was a classmate, she has no other affair or connection with the petitioner. According to her, she is not under the illegal custody of anybody, including his father, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent, who is her mother's sister.
6. During our interaction with the petitioner, he submitted before us in terms of the contentions and averments contained in the writ petition. According to him, himself and Kavya, the alleged detenue, were in love and garlands were exchanged in front of Siva Temple, Near Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram. Thus, they became the husband and wife and his wife Kavya now taken a different stand before this Court only because of the interference and influence of her father, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent.
7. As far as this proceeding is concerned, especially when the grievance projected by the petitioner is that his fiance Miss. Kavya is under the illegal confinement of the respondents 4 and 5, the only fact to be ascertained from the detenue is whether such allegation is false or not. When the alleged detenue herself deposed before us that she is not under the illegal custody of anybody, including the respondents 4 and 5, we lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the above writ petition.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Kavya had entrusted the following documents with the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to handover the same to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5:
1. Plus Two Mark list (Original).
2. Admission ticket of Higher Secondary Exam. (Photograph detached).
3. Passport size photo (4 Nos.)
4. Photograph of petitioner and detenue (1 No.)
5. School library card.
6. Receipt voucher of Aradhana Eye Institute.
7. Letter (2 ½ pages)
8. First Year BA/BSc. Exam. - Malayalam question paper.
9. Receipt from Mar Ivanious Institute of Fashion Technology.
10. Physics & Chemistry question booklet.
11. CBSE Admit card - photocopy.
12. Copy of Income Certificate.
13. Copy of SAY Examination results, 2013.
14. Application form for admission to Paramedical Diploma Course, 2013.
15. Copy of Adhar Card (3 pages) Accordingly, the above documents are handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, who received the same:
In the light of the facts and circumstances referred above and in view of the deposition made by the detenue before this Court, it is crystal clear that she is not under the illegal confinement of anybody, including the respondents 4 and 5. As such, no orders are warranted. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge