SUBINSHA Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to search for, trace and produce Ramshitha, a young girl, aged about 18 years (date of birth 19.8.1992). She is a student of Plus two course. She is residing along with her parents and her brother. The petitioner and the alleged detenue Ramshitha were in love. According to the petitioner, she had come to his house and both of them had eloped earlier. She was aged about 15 years then. Later she was produced before the Magistrate. As Ramshitha had not attained the age of 18 years then, she was sent along with her parents. According to the petitioner, Ramshitha had wanted to go with him and she had asserted that as soon as she attains majority she will join the petitioner. The petitioner waited patiently till she attains the age of 18 years. After she attained the age of 18 years, the petitioner wanted to resume the relationship with the alleged detenue. But the alleged detenue was being illegally detained and confined by her parents. She was not being permitted to contact the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 7.10.2010. The case was posted to 8.20.10, 12.10.10 and 18.10.2010.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and after perusing the documents produced and after hearing the learned Government Pleader, who took instructions from the police about the previous proceedings before the Valiyathura Police Station/Magistrate, we admitted this petition on 22.10.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date.

(3.) Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. He is represented by his counsel. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have appeared before Court. They are also represented by a counsel. The alleged detenue has come to Court along with/in the custody of respondents 3 to 5, who are allegedly detaining and confining her. We permitted her to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity to no one to interact with her. The alleged detenue stated before us that she does not want to interact with the petitioner. During the pre-lunch session she was permitted to remain in the Chamber. After the lunch recess we interacted with the alleged detenue alone initially. Later we interacted with the alleged detenue in the presence of respondents 3 and 4. Subsequently we interacted with her in the presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader were present.