Harilal, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the alleged detenue by name “Gayathri”, who is aged 22 years and had completed her GNM Course (General Nursing and Midwifery) in the year 2014. During the course of her education, she developed a friendship through social networking website facebook with the 3rd respondent. After completion of GNM Course by the detenue, the petitioner had arranged a marriage proposal for her daughter. The marriage was almost fixed. At that time, the 3rd respondent approached the petitioner and wanted to marry the detenue and had called up the petitioner expressing his desire ; but the petitioner politely responded to him stating that, the detenue's marriage has already been fixed and she does not intend to give her daughter in marriage to him. The 4th respondent, who is the father of the 3rd respondent, also contacted the petitioner and expressed his desire to bring Gayathri to his house as the wife of his son, but the petitioner was not amenable to his demand.
2. While so, on 29.9.2014, when the petitioner left for her work, the detenue was found missing from the house. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the detenue is under the custody of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner was not allowed to see her daughter. Though the petitioner had complained to the 1st and 2nd respondents, they have not taken any effective steps to release the detenue from the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4. On 8.10.2014, the petitioner received a phone call from her daughter and she had expressed her strong desire to come back. She further told her that respondents 3 and 4 are not allowing her to come back home. Thus, the petitioner’s daughter is detained illegally by respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner apprehends that her daughter’s life and liberty are in danger. On the above premises, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body of the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty forthwith.
3. We admitted the writ petition and issued notice to the respondents 3 and 4 and they were also directed to produce the detenue before this Court on 17.10.2014 and respondents 1 and 2 were directed to see that the above order is complied with. In compliance with the direction in the interim order, today, respondents 3 and 4 along with the alleged detenue and the petitioner are present before this Court. We interacted with all of them. The alleged detenue, during the course of interaction, revealed that she is not under the illegal custody of the respondents 3 and 4 as alleged in the petition. It is also submitted that her marriage with the 3rd respondent was solemnized at Thonikkal Mahadeva temple on 30.9.2014 and thereafter she is living with the 3rd respondent as his legally wedded wife. She is not interested to go with the petitioner. When we interacted with the petitioner, she expressed her desire to give the detenue in marriage to the 3rd respondent after a short time, if the detenue is released to her custody for the time being. In view of the desire expressed by the petitioner, we interacted with the 4th respondent and he also expressed his desire to solemnize a formal marriage with the blessings of the parents of both the detenue and the 3rd respondent. On the above premises, we referred the matter to the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court of Kerala, to arrive at a settlement, so as to effect a formal marriage with the blessings of the parents and the case is again posted to 3 p.m. on this date, after the mediation.
4. Now, all the parties again appeared before us and submitted that they have arrived at a settlement to give the petitioner’s daughter in marriage to the 3rd respondent by conducting a formal marriage on 7.12.2014. The terms of settlement have been entered into and the agreement is signed by both the parties and their respective counsel.
Thus, the mediation became fruitful and the matter stands resolved. In view of the settlement arrived at the Kerala Mediation Centre between the parties referred above, we are of the opinion that, no further orders need to be passed in the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence we close this writ petition. The terms of settlement filed along with the report by the Mediator, will also form part of this order. We hope that the parties will comply with the terms of settlement, as prescribed in the agreement, without failure.
In the result, with the above observations and findings, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.