SHYLAJA 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 Suja Sunder, her daughter aged 17 years (date of birth 27.8.1993). According to the petitioner, her husband, (father of the alleged detenue) is employed abroad. The petitioner is residing along with her two children - the alleged detenue and her younger sister. The alleged detenue was found missing from 22.9.2010. A crime was registered by the Paravoor Police. But the police did not trace the alleged detenue. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 27.9.2010.

(2.) This petition was admitted on 28.9.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Today when the case is called, the petitioner along with her husband has come to Court. She is represented by her counsel. Respondents 3 and 4 have come to Court. They are represented by their counsel.

(3.) As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of respondents 3 and 4, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber. We permitted the petitioner and her husband, the parents of the alleged detenue, to interact with her. During the pre-lunch sessions the alleged detenue and her parents were permitted to so interact. After the lunch recess we interact with the alleged detenue alone initially and later in the presence of her parents. Subsequently we interact with respondent No.3 and the alleged detenue.