THAJUDHEEN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his daughter Nishida. We have already passed orders dated 28.2.2011 and 4.3.2011. In the order dated 28.2.2011 we had taken note of the stand of the alleged detent Nishida that she was in love with the 4th Respondent and there is a marriage between her and the 4th Respondent. We noted that the parties belong to two different religions and there is no marriage under the Special Marriage Act. We had directed the alleged detent to reside in the Santhinikethan hostel. In the said order we had noted that it will be open to the parties to give notice under the Special Marriage Act. Later on, by order dated 4.3.2011 we had permitted the alleged detent to proceed to stay at the Muslim Working Women's' Hostel, Panavila, Near Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. In the order dated 10.3.2011 we had noted the submission that notice for registering the marriage under the Special Marriage Act has been given and 30 days' period contemplated under the Act will expire on 8.4.2011, and, we had directed the matter to be listed to 11.4.2011 and accordingly the matter is listed to today.

(2.) Today, when the matter was came up, the learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent would submit that the period of 30 days is over and the marriage can be registered. Learned Counsel for the WPCR 92/2011 -2-Petitioner would submit that a petition has been filed by a stranger lady before the Marriage Officer.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel, we pass the following order.