Harilal,J:
The petitioner is the mother of the alleged detenue by name 'Merlin'. She is studying for Pre-degree at M.S.N.College at Kollam and aged 18 years. The third respondent is her classmate and he is aged 19 years only. On 22.9.2014, the third respondent forcefully took the detenue after she came out of her college. Based upon the information provided by one of her friends, the petitioner informed the Saktikulangara Police Station and a crime was registered thereunder. On 23.9.2014, the detenue and the third respondent were brought to the Anchalumoodu Police Station and then to the second respondent and thereafter, they were produced before the Magistrate Court on 23.9.2014. According to the petitioner, even at the time of the production of the detenue before the Magistrate, the third respondent was accompanied by his friends and relatives. Most of them are engaged in antisocial activities. At that time, it appeared that the detenue was unable to form a decision of her own volition. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate also failed to help the petitioner merely on the reason that the detenue is a major. Thereafter, the petitioner reliably understood that she is detained against her will and her liberty is curtailed by the third respondent. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce her before this Court.
2. We admitted the writ petition and issued notice to the third respondent with a direction to produce the detenue before this Court on 8.10.2014 and the second respondent was directed to take necessary steps to ensure the presence of the detenue before this Court. On 8.10.2014, in compliance with the order dated 1st October, 2014, the detenue was produced before this Court by the third respondent and his parents. We have interacted with the detenue, the third respondent and their parents. During the course of interaction, the detenue submitted that she is in love with the third respondent and they decided to marry, but the third respondent is aged 19 years only. But, her parents are not willing to give her in marriage to the third respondent when he attains majority.
3. When we interacted with the parents of the detenue, they submitted before us that they are willing to give the detenue in marriage to the third respondent after two years when he attains majority. They were more concerned with the education of the detenue. They expressed their desire to see that the detenue has completed her education. When we interacted with the parents of the third respondent, they expressed their willingness to accept the detenue as the wife of the third respondent and they have no objection in getting them married, when the third respondent attains majority. The third respondent submitted that since he is not a major and eligible to get married, at present, the detenue is residing in the house of his father's brother and now, the detenue and the third respondent are not residing together. Since the parents of the detenue expressed their willingness to give the detenue in marriage to the third respondent, when he attains majority, we directed them to arrive at an amicable terms of settlement with the help of concerned lawyers with respect to the place of residence of the detenue till the solemnisation of the proposed marriage and posted the case to 21.10.2014.
4. Today, all the parties are present before us and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have arrived at an amicable settlement on the basis of the undertaking given by the parents of the detenue that the detenue will be given in marriage to the third respondent when he attains majority. The learned counsel for the third respondent also agrees with the said submission. Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the detenue is not under the illegal custody of the third respondent, particularly when the detenue herself submitted before us that she left the house at her own volition and now residing in the house of the brother of the third respondent's father at her own will and wish. However, now the issue is resolved amicably between the parents of both the detenue and the third respondent and the assurance made by the parents before us would stand recorded. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to pass any further ordes in this writ petition under the writ jurisdiction. We hope that the marriage between the detenue and the third respondent would be solemnised with the blessings of their parents as agreed before this Court.
This Writ Petition (Crl) is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge sd/-
MBS/ K.HARILAL, Judge