Mohanan, J. The parents of one “Sharanya”, aged 20 years, stating that, when their daughter was under the age of 18 years, she was missing from their house at Perungala Village on 12/11/2012 at around 5.30 a.m. and it is further alleged that the said minor daughter of the petitioners was detained in the illegal custody of respondents 5 and 6. Thus, the above writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to produce the corpus of the petitioner's daughter 'Sharanya' before this Court and to set her at liberty forthwith.
2 When the above writ petition came up for admission on 26/11/2012, this Court, though not admitted the writ petition, issued the following order:
“Not admitted. Sri.N. Suresh, the learned Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Sri. Suresh will seek instructions from the concerned among R1 to R4 as to what is the status of the investigation into person missing crime registered at the instance of the petitioners. Issue notice on admission by special messenger to R5 and R6. R5 and R6 are directed to produce Sharanya, the daughter of the petitioners, before this Court at 10.15 a.m. on 30/11/12 and also to show cause why the above order for production should not be made absolute.”
Subsequently, by order dated 30/11/2012 this Court directed the police to strengthen the investigation by constituting a special team to continue the investigation. Thereafter, by order dated 18/12/2012, when the detenue is traced out and produced before this Court, this Court directed that Sharanya be admitted in S.N.V. Sadanam Ladies Hostel, Ernakulam, and the 5th respondent is directed to produce the documents, if any, to substantiate his claim that he married the detenue Sharanya. Thereafter, by another order dated 8/2/2013, this Court issued various directions, including the visitation right to the parents in the hostel and denying such a right to the 5th respondent. After directing the family counsellor attached to the People's Council for Social Justice to give counselling to the detenue at least three or four times during her stay in the hostel, the hostel authorities were directed to make necessary arrangements to facilitate such counselling. This Court, by order dated 22/2/2013, impleaded the Manager of the school in which the 5th respondent was working as a teacher as additional 7th respondent and he is directed to file a report regarding the character and antecedents of the 5th respondent. It appears that, pursuant to the said order, a report is seen filed by the 7th respondent. Later, by another order dated 12/3/2013, this Court opinioned that the detenue Sharanya must be examined by a Medical Board consisting of competent Psychologists, Psychiatrists etc., so that a report can be obtained regarding her I.Q., power of comprehension, maturity etc., and this Court suo motu impleaded the Superintendent of the General Hospital, Ernakulam, as the additional 8th respondent, who is directed to constitute a Medical Board of qualified and experienced medical personnels (Psychologist, Psychiatrist etc.,) and also directed to submit a report to this Court regarding the IQ level, power of comprehension, maturity etc., of the detenue Sharanya.
3. We are not proposed to refer all the subsequent orders passed by this Court. However, it is relevant to note that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, a psychotherapy report was filed by Dr. Sandheesh PT., Clinical Psychologist, General Hospital, Ernakulam, dated 26/11/2013. As per the said report, it is seen that the detenue Sharanya was given sixteen intensive psychotherapy sessions to modify her irrational thinking pattern, enhance copying and decision making skills, assertiveness and to manage her impulsivity. She was also given educational counselling to enhance her scholastic achievements. Under the heading 'Remark”, it is reported that:
“Miss Sharanya responded well to the psychotherapeutic treatment. She has shown significant improvement in her perception and decision making skills”.
(emphasis supplied) It is also seen reported that she expressed her willingness to be with her parents than selecting Mr. Sunil Kumar as her life partner.
4. It is under the above background, this writ petition today came up for our consideration. We heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent. The petitioners, the parents of Sharanya, are present and the 5th respondent is also present. The detenue Sharanya is produced by her parents. We interacted with all of them.
5. During our interaction with the said Sharanya, she submitted before us that she now attained the age of 20 and her date of birth is 29/4/1994 and she had studied up to Plus One. While she was weeping before us, she pitifully submitted before us that her parents are trying to make her a psychiatric patient and she has absolutely no such psychological problems. She has also stated that she wants to go along with the 5th respondent, her husband. As rightly observed in the psychotherapy report dated 26/11/2013, whenever we put questions to Sharanya, she responded the questions properly and effectively and her answers to our queries are very specific and also with clarity. We find no abnormality in her conduct or approach or on her understanding capacity.
6. When we interacted with the parents of the detenue Sharanya, they expressed an apprehension before us that there is a vast age difference between the 5th respondent and the detenue Sharanya and also the future of the detenue is not safe in case she goes along with the 5th respondent. Though we have put questions to both father and mother of the detenue and they were permitted to chat with us freely, none of them expressed any complaint about the mental capacity of the detenue or any psychic problem to her. Their apprehension, as we indicated, is about the future of their daughter since according to them, the 5th respondent's character is not good. The 5th respondent submitted before us that his earlier wife was legally divorced and he had already married the detenue.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case and in the light of what we have referred above, we are of the firm opinion that, particularly in view of what stated by the detenue Sharanya before us, she is not under the illegal custody of the 5th respondent and she wants to go along with the 5th respondent and she is very adamant in not going along with her parents - the petitioners.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by setting the detenue - Sharanya at liberty and she can go according to her will and desire. The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to see that there shall not be any disturbance or interference from the side of the parents of Sharanya or their henchmen with the peaceful life of the detenue Sharanya and the 5th respondent.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge