Mohanan, J.
The petitioners are respectively the mother and the uncle of a 21 year old girl, named Honey, who is said to be under the illegal custody of the 4th respondent and hence they preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to cause the production of the 1st petitioner's daughter Honey, aged 21 years, who is now kept in illegal detention by the 4th respondent and others at some place within the State of Kerala, before this Court and set her at liberty, forthwith.
2. When the above writ petition came up for admission, by order dated 7.10.2014, we admitted the writ petition and ordered notice to respondents 3 to 5 to be served through special messenger and respondent nos.3 and 4 were directed to produce the detenue, namely Honey before this Court on this date and the 2nd respondent-the Circle Inspector of Police was also directed to see that respondent nos.3 and 4 have produced the detenue. Thus when the case is taken up today, the detenue is produced.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the detenue.
4. We have interacted with the detenue Honey and the 1st petitioner as well as the 5th respondent.
5. The case of the petitioners is that Honey-the second daughter of the 1st petitioner is a singer and she used to attend programmes under 'Cochin Sarga', a local music troop, for the last 3 years and the 4th respondent is also a singer in the said Music troop, who is leading the troop. According to the petitioners, the said 4th respondent is aged above 45 years and he is working in the Statistical Department of Government of Kerala, who also got a family, consist of his wife (5th respondent herein) and two children. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent used to pick the detenue from her residence and brought her back even during late at night after the music programme. According to the petitioners, there was nothing unusual to suspect the 4th respondent and his approach towards the detenue. According to the petitioners, the said detenue recently started to insist for her share in the family property etc. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner-the mother of the detenue overheard her talk to some other persons through telephone and when the 1st petitioner questioned about the same, she refused to divulge any details, but she was found disturbed. Thus according to the petitioners, subsequently on 10.8.2014, she was found missing.
6. According to the petitioners, on their enquiry, they realised that the 1st petitioner's daughter Honey had eloped with the 4th respondent, who had taken her to some unknown place in Kochi city and detained her against her will and desire. So, according to the petitioners, they preferred a complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Palluruthy. Consequently, the police found that the daughter of the 1st petitioner was residing with the 3rd respondent, but she was not prepared to co-operate with the investigation and not prepared to release the said Honey from her flat and the 3rd respondent abused the petitioners and threatened the police officers.
7. That being the position, according to the petitioners, the petitioners herein received notice from this Court in a police protection matter, ie., WPC No.23695/14 filed by the said Honey. Ext.P1 is the copy of the interim order passed by this Court on 16.9.2014 in the above writ petition. As per the said order of this Court, the petitioners along with the detenue appeared before the Mediator on 22.9.2014 and the 1st petitioner's daughter was set free at the mediation center on 22.9.2014. The further case of the petitioners is that, thereafter the daughter of the 1st petitioner is residing along with the 3rd respondent, but all attempts of the petitioners to contact the detenue were resulted in vain and thus according to the petitioners, they are ignorant as to the whereabouts of the daughter of the 1st petitioner. On further enquiry, according to the petitioners, they realised that detenue left for Pune with the 4th respondent and one Shanmughan on 24.9.2014. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners contacted the 3rd respondent, she threatened the petitioners with dare consequence. It is under the above circumstances, according to the petitioners, they approached this Court seeking the above relieves.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that though the detenue is a major, her future is in danger as long as she is in the custody of respondent nos.3 and 4.
9. We have interacted with the detenue who is present before this Court. She submitted that she is now at the age of 21 years and she had passed +2 examination and joined for B.Com (Co-operation) course in St.Thomas College, Thoppumpady. It is her further grievance that, her parents, the 1st petitioner and her father, are not in good terms and according to the detenue, the situation in her family has adversely affected her academic future and her professional career. She submitted before us that she wants to complete her graduation and thereafter she wants to continue her studies on music, in the RLV Music college, but she was not having any income to achieve the above objects, especially when there is no income in the family, as her mother is a house wife and her father is a drunkard, who is not going for any work. It is also her version that, being a singer, now she is getting a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and she is able to manage with that income for her studies as well as for her profession as a singer. So, according to the detenue, it was at her will and desire, she left her parental house and opted to reside in the flat of respondent no.3 and she is not under the illegal custody of anybody including respondent nos.3 and 4.
10. When we interacted with the 1st petitioner, the mother of the detenue, she submitted before us that she has some serious doubts about the relationship of her daughter with the 4th respondent and according to her, there is something unusual or illegal acts are going on inside the flat owned by the 3rd respondent and therefore she had apprehension about the future of her daughter. During the interaction with the 5th respondent, who is the wife of the 4th respondent, she has also submitted before us approving the apprehension expressed by the 1st petitioner as correct, particularly with respect to the relationship between the detenue and the 4th respondent, who is the husband of the 5th respondent.
11. In a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the apprehension of the petitioners is that the daughter of the 1st petitioner-Honey is under illegal detention of the 4th respondent and seeks for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, the enquiry of this Court is limited to see whether the said allegation is correct and whether the daughter of the 1st petitioner is under the illegal custody of anybody. As we have indicated earlier, the detenue herself, who is aged 21 years and who had passed +2 examination and studying for the 1st year degree course, has submitted that she is not under the illegal custody of anybody and she had indicated her future plan with respect to her academic and professional career. In the above circumstances, we find no further scope for any enquiry in this regard, in view of the above stand of the so called detenue, namely Honey-the daughter of the 1st petitioner. As the detenue, who is a major, is not under the custody of anybody, including the 4th respondent, as submitted by the alleged detenue Honey, according to us, no further enquiry is warranted and no further orders are necessary.
In the result, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.