Mohanan, J. The petitioner, who claimed that he is the legally married husband of one Ms. Arathy and alleging that the said Arathy is under the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6, who are her parents, approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondents 2 to 4 to produce the body of the detenue before this Court.
2. When this writ petition came up for admission and while admitting the same, by order dated 7/10/2014, respondents 5 and 6 were directed to produce their daughter, the detenue viz., Arathy before this Court on this date and respondents 1 to 4 were directed to see that the above detenue is produced before this Court, as directed.
3. Thus, when the case is taken up today, Ms.
Arathy, the so-called detenue, is produced and we had interacted with her. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. As the petitioner is a physically challenged person, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to interact with him in the light of the submissions made by the detenue during our interaction with her.
4. According to the petitioner, he had married the daughter of respondents 5 and 6 viz., Ms. Arathy on 9/4/2014 at Chittedathukavu Devikshethram, Vaikaprayar, Vaikom, as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies and the said marriage was registered with Udayanapuram Gramapanchayat, as per Rule 11 (1) of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that the parents of the detenue and her relatives are against the said relationship between the petitioner and the detenue. According to the petitioner, after the marriage, while they were residing in the house of the petitioner, and during Onam days, respondents 5 and 6 invited the couple to their house for celebrating their first Onam and thus, the petitioner as well as the said Arathy resided in the house of respondents 5 and 6 for six days and they came back to the house of petitioner on 13/9/2014. It is further alleged that thereafter, the 6th respondent contacted the said Arathy stating that her LIC account in the name of the detenue - Arathy, has matured and received a letter from the concerned LIC Branch and to receive the amount, the presence of the detenue is absolutely necessary and accordingly, the detenue - Arathy left the company of the petitioner for the sole purpose of receiving the LIC amount. But, thereafter she did not join with the petitioner and on his enquiry, according to him, it is revealed that his wife the said Arathy was under the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6 and therefore, he preferred this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
5. During our interaction with the said Arathy, who is a major and who crossed the age of 18 years during the month of January, 2014, submitted before us that she was actually fell in love with the brother of the petitioner and she was compelled and forced to marry the petitioner on 9/4/2014. According to her, in fact, she was not at all interested with the petitioner; but her interest and friendship was with one Sreeraj, the brother of the petitioner, and she realised the trap set up by the petitioner only when she reached the Chittedathukavu Devikshethram on 9/4/2014 and at that point of time, she has no other way; but to marry the petitioner. Thus, she was forced to marry the petitioner, without her free will and proper consent.
6. To a pointed query, she answered to us that she is not under the illegal custody of anybody, including respondents 5 and 6.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after interaction with the petitioner, submitted that all what stated by the detenue before us are false and concocted story and the petitioner and the detenue were in love for the last several months and she changed her stand only at the instance of respondents 5 and 6.
8. In a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution, when it is alleged that the detenue is under the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6, the limited scope of enquiry in this Court is only to find out whether the detenue is under illegal custody of any body against her will and choice. In the present case, the detenue herself submitted before us about the fact which led to the alleged marriage occurred on 9/4/2014 and also stated that she wants to reside along with her parents, respondents 5 and 6 and she is not under the illegal custody of anybody and not interested to go with the petitioner.
In view of the above stand of Ms. Arathy, the so-called detenue, we are satisfied that the said Arathy is not under any illegal confinement or custody of anybody and therefore no further order is warranted and accordingly this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge