VINOD Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a young man, aged about 29 years, has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Jemi by name, aged 22 years (date of birth 02.10.1987). The marriage between the petitioner and Jemi (hereinafter referred to as `the alleged detenue') had taken place on 27.08.2006. A girl child by name Devananda was born on 11.03.2007. The alleged detenue was missing from 31.08.2010. The petitioner apprehended that his wife is under the illegal detention/confinement of the 4th respondent. A complaint was filed before the police. But the police had not succeeded in tracing the alleged detenue and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 17.09.2010. The petition was admitted on 22.09.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to 01.10.2010.

(2.) Today on the representation of the learned Government Pleader, this case was advanced for hearing. When the case is called, the petitioner along with his counsel is present. The 4th respondent, Vinoj, who according to the petitioner was allegedly detaining his wife, the alleged detenue, is present. Along with him, the alleged detenue has also come to Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that the alleged detenue was traced by the police and she was produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate on being satisfied that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement or detention, had set her at liberty permitting her to pursue whatever course she chose to follow. It is, in these circumstances, as directed by the police that the alleged detenue along with the 4th respondent has appeared before Court today.

(3.) As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of the 4th respondent, who allegedly is detaining and confining her, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber with opportunity to the petitioner to interact with her. The petitioner wanted and the alleged detenue agreed for such interaction. During the pre lunch session, the spouses were given opportunity to interact with each other.