Mohanan, J.
In this Writ Petition moved under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance projected by the petitioner is that his lover, namely Sruthi P.S., the daughter of respondents 3 and 4 is kept under illegal confinement as respondents 3 and 4 are not prepared to approve their love affair. Hence, it is prayed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents 3 and 4 to produce Sruthi P.S. before this Court and set her at liberty.
2. When the above Writ Petition came up for admission, by Order dated 5.11.2014, while admitting the Writ Petition, issued notices to respondents 3 and 4 and they were directed to produce the detenue Miss.Sruthi P.S. before this Court on this date and when the matter is taken up today the said detenue is produced. Thus we have interacted with Sruthi P.S., the detenue herein and we have interacted with the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 in the open court as well as in our chamber and we have heard Adv. O.V. Maniprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.Sebastian Champappilly, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting almost all the averments in the above petition and they have specifically stated that their daughter Sruthi P.S. is only under their lawful custody being her guardian and not kept her against her will and pressure and also stated that the marriage of their daughter is fixed on the basis of betrothal ceremony conducted on 3.11.2014.
4. During our interaction with the said detenue, she has also deposed before us that though there was some affairs during her early school and college days, she put an end to that affair and she herself consented for the marriage proposed by her parents and thus the betrothal was held on 3.11.2014. Thus, according to her, she is not under the illegal custody of anybody, including respondents 3 and 4, and she is not interested in talking with the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, when we interacted with the petitioner he submitted before us that the love affair with the daughter of respondents 3 and 4 has a history of eight years and whatever she submitted before this Court is not according to her free mind, but she was coerced to make such submission before this Court. According to him, because of this affair he had lost his carrier even as a cricket player.
6. As we heard from the mouth of the detenue that she is not under illegal custody of anybody and she is prepared for marriage with another man, we find no further scope for any enquiry and according to us no orders are warranted under the above facts and circumstances.
In the result, the above Writ Petition is closed accordingly.
Sd/-
V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
jjj