Harilal,J:
The petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue by name Aneesha.S.Sanam. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and to set her at liberty. The detenue is aged 20 years and is studying in Kappan's School of Accountancy and Management at Edappally, Ernakulam. The petitioner belongs to Muslim community. The fifth respondent had an affair with the detenue and he is working in Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents 4 and 6 are his parents.
2. On 20.8.2014 at about 4 p.m., the petitioner's daughter went to the road, thereafter she did not return. On enquiry, the petitioner understood that respondents 4 and 5 were also missing. The petitioner has reason to believe that the fourth and fifth respondents took petitioner's daughter to somewhere else so as to keep her away from her parents. On 20.8.2014 itself, the petitioner had given a complaint to the third respondent complaining unlawful detention of the detenue by respondents 4 and 5. But, the third respondent has not taken any effective steps to trace out the detenue and release her. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition for granting reliefs as prayed for.
3. We admitted the writ petition and issued notice to respondents 4 and 5 with a direction to produce the detenue before this Court. The respondents 2 and 3, the Police Officials were also directed to see that the detenue is produced before this Court in compliance with the said order. On 5th September, 2014, in compliance with the direction in the order dated 3rd September,2014, the detenue was produced before this Court. The parents of the detenue as well as the fifth respondent were also present before this Court.
4. We have interacted with all these persons. The detenue submitted that she is in love with the fifth respondent and they have decided to get married. It is also submitted that the detenue and the fifth respondent have given notice of marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The fifth respondent also endorsed the submissions made by the detenue. We directed the detenue to reside in Shanthi Nikethan Hostel, Pachalam and the fifth respondent was allowed to meet the detenue for the purpose of getting the signature for filing an application under the Special Marriage Act.
5. Thereafter, on 24.9.2014, the detenue had been produced before this Court. At that time, the detenue submitted that the period of statutory notice issued under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act will expire on 25.10.2014 and hence, the marriage has to be registered on 27.10.2014, for which, the documents to prove the date of birth of the detenue and her identity are absolutely necessary. But, those documents are in the possession of the petitioner. Since the registration of the marriage was scheduled to be held on 27.10.2014, the petitioner was directed to produce those documents before this Court within one week and if the documents are not available with him, he was further directed to file an affidavit to that effect before this Court.
6. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the documents such as S.S.L.C.Book, plus two mark lists and passport have already been lost while the detenue has undertaken train journey and duplicate copy of the plus two marklists are with the detenue; but, there was no reference to the S.S.L.C.Book in the said affidavit. When we interacted with the detenue, the detenue denied the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and she submitted that according to the information which she received from the institute where she was studying, the petitioner has collected those documents from that institute. In view of the above submission, we further directed the petitioner to file an affidavit stating his explanation on that day itself, in view of the facts revealed by the detenue before us. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner before this Court, he had stated that the documents including CBSE certificate were produced before the EDX, Ernakulam at the time of her admission in the above institution.
7. In the above circumstances, we directed the petitioner to implead the Head of the Institution where the detenue was studying at the time when she was allegedly missing. In compliance with the said direction, the Head of the Institution was got impleaded as additional seventh respondent. Even though notice was served on the additional seventh respondent, he has not turned up. So we directed him to appear before this Court on 30.10.2014 in person.
8. On 30.10.2014, the seventh respondent appeared before this court in person and submitted that the above said documents are available with him and he is ready to produce the documents before this Court. He was represented by a counsel also. On 31.10.2014, in terms of the order dated 30.10.2014, the detenue was produced before us and the records available with the additional seventh respondent were handed over to the detenue by the counsel appearing for the additional seventh respondent. The said records were verified by the detenue and she was found satisfied with the same and submitted that she has received the originals of her S.S.L.C., Plus Two certificate and Plus Two marklist. We noticed that both the fifth respondent and the detenue have issued notice under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act to register their marriage formally and the period of the said notice expired on 27.10.2014. Both the detenue as well as the fifth respondent submitted that if they are permitted, they can register the marriage on the next day itself, i.e. on 1.11.2014. In view of the above submission, we permitted the detenue and the fifth respondent to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act before the Marriage Officer of Kollam Sub District Office.
9. Today when the case is taken up for hearing, the detenue as well as the fifth respondent, who are present before us, submitted that they have registered their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 1.11.2014 itself. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions also submitted that according to his instructions also, the marriage has been registered on 1.11.2014 under the Special Marriage Act in the Kollam Sub District Office.
10. Having regard to the sequences of events, we are of the opinion that the marriage of the detenue with the fifth respondent has been registered in accordance with law and at present, they are husband and wife and the detenue is not under the illegal custody of the fifth respondent as alleged in the writ petition. In the above circumstances, there is no need to pass any further order invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this matter. The detenue as well as the fifth respondent are allowed to live in accordance with their will and wish.
11. We heard Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.V.Dileep, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Sri.Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments pointing out the scope and extent of Parental Authority, nothwithstanding the attainment of majority of their children. According to the learned counsel, even if the children have attained majority, the parents can exercise their authority to make sure the welfare and better future of their children and such Authority can be extended to insist or compel them to live along with them, restricting their right to live according to their will and wish. So also the imposition of such restrictions cannot be treated as illegal detention and the court can compel the major children also to live along with their parents if the parents desire so. To substantiate the above point, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in Lal Parameswar v. Ullas [2014(1) KLT 937].
13. We have meticulously considered the observations made by this Court in the above decision. We are of the opinion that the observations made by this Court in that case cannot be applied to this case as the facts and circumstances and reliefs sought for are entirely different and distinct. In that case, the major detenue was living along with her parents at the time of filing the writ of habeas corpus. The lover of the detenue, who intends to get married with the detenue filed the writ petition alleging that the detenue, who is a major is under illegal detention of her parents, against her will and wish to get married with the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the issuance of Habeas Corpus directing the parents to produce the detenue and set her at liberty. But in the instant case, the detenue had been living with the fifth respondent from 20.8.2014 onwards and till the production of the detenue before this Court. The allegation of the petitioner is that she is under the illegal detention of the fifth respondent. But, when we interacted with the detenue, she told us that she is not under illegal custody of the fifth respondent or anybody else and she wants to get married with the fifth respondent, for which they have already issued notice under the Special Marriage Act. Pursuant to the permission granted by this court, they have registered their marriage under Special Marriage Act on 1st day of November,2014 and produced the copy of the Marriage Certificate before us.
In such circumstances, whatever be the scope and extent of the Parental Authority, we cannot compel the detenue to go and live along with her parents, leaving her husband. Now we are satisfied that the detenue is not under illegal custody of the fifth respondent or anybody else. Hence, we are not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for. Hence this writ petition(Crl) is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge K. HARILAL, Judge.
MBS/