Mohanan, J The petitioner, who is a lady, preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that her husband, namely Praveen K.P., is under the illegal custody of the 5th respondent. Therefore, it is prayed to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 5 to produce the detenue, namely Praveen K.P., before this Court.
2. In pursuance to the order dated 10/11/2014, the detenue namely Praveen K.P. is produced before this Court and we have interacted with him as well as with the petitioner. The detenue Mr. Praveen K.P. submitted before us that he is at the age of 20 years and he was studying for Diploma in Engineering; but the same could not be completed. According to the detenue, he was having some love affairs with the petitioner. But he is not continuing the said relationship with the petitioner.
W.P(Crl).462/14-S :2:
According to the detenue, he is not under the illegal custody of anybody and he is not interested to even talk with the petitioner.
3. The petitioner during interaction submitted before us that a formal marriage with the detenue was solemnized at Chottanikkara Temple on 3/7/2014 and Ext.P1 is the certificate issued by the Devaswom Manager, Chottanikkara Devaswom. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the marriage on 3/7/2014 the petitioner and the detenue were living together and on 31/8/2014 the wife of the 5th respondent called the detenue over phone and, in pursuance to the said phone call, the husband of the petitioner went to see his grand mother and thereafter he did not return. Thereafter, though the petitioner made several enquiries, she could not trace out the detenue and, therefore, she filed a petition before the Thrikkakara Police Station. So, according to the petitioner, the detenue is under the illegal custody of the 5th respondent and it is under the above circumstances she preferred the above writ petition.
4. Since it is revealed during our interaction with the detenue that he is not under the illegal custody of anybody and
W.P(Crl).462/14-S :3:
lacks jurisdiction to further proceed with the above writ petition, especially when no order is warranted. If the petitioner wanted to proceed against the detenue, she can very well resort to other legal remedies. As the detenue is not under the illegal custody of anybody, the above writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
okb.