Harilal, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the alleged detenue by name Athira, aged 25 years. She is studying in C.M. Medical Training Centre at Chengannoor. While so, on 10/10/2014, the detenue went to the institute at 9.15 a.m. But she did not come back in the evening. The petitioner and the youngest daughter were at home. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the detenue was in friendship with the 4th respondent a year ago, when he was working in a hotel by name Aryaas at Pandalam and subsequently she realised the fact that the detenue eloped with the 4th respondent at his instance. It was also came to know that the 4th respondent had already married a lady by name Mary and he has one daughter in that wedlock. Immediately, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 3rd respondent on the bona fide belief that the 3rd respondent will take necessary steps to trace out the detenue. But no action had been taken so far. This is the grievance projected by the petitioner in this writ petition.
W.P(Crl.).440/14-S :2:
2. We admitted the writ petition and directed the Government Pleader to get instruction and trace out the detenue, if she is found missing. Today, the learned Government Pleader mentioned this matter, though there was no posting, and submitted that the detenue along with the 4th respondent is present before this Court as per the instruction of the 3rd respondent. So we took the case and considered the matter.
3. The learned Government Pleader further submits that when the respondents 1 to 3 have taken steps to trace out the detenue, the detenue and the 4th respondent came to know the same and they themselves surrendered before the police and thereafter the detenue along with the 4th respondent was produced before the Magistrate's Court. When the detenue was produced before the Magistrate, she stated that she voluntarily left her home and went along with her lover, the 4th respondent, and she wants to live along with the 4th respondent. On the basis of the said submission, the learned Magistrate set her at liberty.
4. When we interacted with the detenue, she unequivocally stated before us that she is not under the illegal custody of the 4th respondent or anybody else. She voluntarily left home and thereafter cohabited with the 4th respondent at Theni in Tamilnadu. She further stated that she was aware of the fact that the 4th respondent has married earlier and in that wedlock
W.P(Crl.).440/14-S :3:
he has a child also. But, according to the detenue, they discontinued their cohabitation due to discordancy in married life and now they are living separately. She along with the 4th respondent went to her house yesterday from Theni and interacted with her mother and today she is coming from her house along with the 4th respondent and her mother. She further stated that her mother has no objection in living along with the 4th respondent.
5. However, when she has stated before us that she is not under the illegal custody of the 4th respondent or anybody else, this Court lacks jurisdiction to pass any further order invoking jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India in this writ of habeas corpus. We are not inclined to consider the legitimacy of their cohabitation in this writ petition. The detenue can live according to her will and wish.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
okb.