Mohanan, J. In the above writ petition, it is claimed by the petitioner that he is in love with one Salmi Salim, the daughter of the 3rd respondent, and they entered into a marriage as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, as evidenced by Ext.P1 certificate issued from the Marriage Officer, Navaikulam, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the marriage, the petitioner and his wife namely Salmi Salim, who is the alleged detenue herein, were residing together from 13/11/2014. While so, on 27/11/2014, the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the detenue Salmi Salim, came and forcefully taken the detenue to the house of the 3rd respondent at Varkala and when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and enquired about his wife, he was intimidated and threatened with dare consequences and also threated that the petitioner will be implicated in criminal cases. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the detenue was under the illegal confinement of the 3rd respondent, she contacted him over mobile phone and requested him to release her from the forceful detention of the 3rd respondent, as she is willing to live with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 petition before the 2nd respondent; but no effective steps has taken and thereafter he preferred the above writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a rule nisi directing the 3rd respondent to produce “Salmi Salim” before this Court and set her free and on their failure to do so, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to investigate, search and find out Salmi Salim and produce her before this Court to be sent along with the petitioner.
2. By order dated 9/12/2014, when we admitted the above writ petition, the 3rd respondent was directed to produce the detenue before this Court and the police officers concerned were directed to see that that the 3rd respondent has complied with the above direction.
3. Thus, when the matter is taken up today, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, submitted that the detenue is produced and thus we have interacted with Salmi Salim, the detenue. We have already heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent.
4. During our interaction with the the detenue, Salmi Salim, she deposed before us that she is now attained the age of 18 years and she crossed the above age on 25/3/2014. According to her, she had passed Plus Two examination and obtained 86% marks and now she is preparing for Medical Entrance Examination which is scheduled to be held on 20/4/2015. She has also stated before us that she was in love with the petitioner; but as on today, she has no affection or love with the petitioner. When we put to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P1 marriage certificate, she deposed before us that she went to the Office of the Marriage Officer Navaikulam, and put her signature, under the impression that she was putting her signature for the purpose of his marriage with some other person. She has also denied the claim of the petitioner that herself and the petitioner resided together for sometime. Thus, Salmi Salim, the detenue, submitted before us that she is not under the illegal confinement of anybody, including the 3rd respondent, and she wants to pursue her studies.
5. When we interacted with the petitioner, he submitted before us that himself and the detenue were in love and as suggested by the detenue, they entered into the marriage as evidenced by Ext.P1 marriage certificate. It is also the version of the petitioner that even the date for registering the marriage was suggested by the detenue. After the marriage, according to the petitioner, they resided together for several days and after the arrival of the father of the detenue from Gulf, he offered that a formal marriage will be conducted. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the complaint filed by him, the detenue was produced in the Police Station and at that point of time, he noticed the injuries on the hands of the detenue. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the detenue was subjected to harassment and intimidation and thus, she was forced to take a different stand against the petitioner. As requested by the petitioner and his counsel, when we put to the detenue as to whether she is interested to talk with the petitioner, her answer was negative.
6. We have also interacted with the wife of the 3rd respondent and the mother of the detenue namely Salmi Salim, who is present in this Court. According to her, her daughter, the so-called detenue, is now preparing for Medical Entrance Examination and they want to continue her studies and only thereafter they will think of arranging marriage for their daughter.
7. In a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the prayer is to issue a writ of habeas corpus, when the detenue herself submitted before us that she is not under the illegal confinement of anybody, including the 3rd respondent, this Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed further. Since the detenue is not under the illegal confinement of anybody, no orders are warranted in this proceeding.
In view of the above stand of the alleged detenue Salmi Salim, we are satisfied that she is not under the illegal confinement of anybody and accordingly this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge