SUBHASH E.R Vs. PUSHPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for the production of the body of Ajanamol, the daughter of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, a proposal for the marriage of Ajanamol with him was seriously considered and the above proposal was almost finalised. He and Ajanamol became very close to each other and they are now deeply in love. But, the first respondent, the mother of Ajanmol, is of late opposed to the marriage between the petitioner and Ajanamol. She has decided to give her daughter in marriage to one Rupesh who is an employee of Milma, Ernakulam, on the sole reason that he is an Government Employee. But, according to the petitioner, he is a much more eligible person as he is working as Website Administrator and Yoga Trainee to Civil Service Personal ( IAS, IPS Officers at their residence). He has started his own web designing firm under the name and style of "Edusat Technologies". He has very good income from his own business and his family have a pappad unit by name "Ushalekshmi Pappad Works". Thus, in all respect he is much more eligible to marry Ajanamol than Rupesh. According to him, Ajanamol is now cribbed and cabined in the first respondent's house against her wishes and she is not a free person. The petitioner apprehends that Ajanamol will commit suicide. Hence, this writ petition seeking issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) ON considering this writ petition for admission, we directed Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 7, to seek instructions from the concerned police officers as to the status of the investigation into the crime, if any, registered on the basis of the complaints claim to have been submitted by the petitioner. We issued notice on admission by special messenger to the first respondent who was directed to produce Ajanamol before this court at 10.15 a.m.. Pursuant to the above order, Ajanamol came to this court along with her mother, the first respondent.

(3.) WE interacted with the petitioner also. The petitioner told us that in the beginning he was not very enthusiastic in marrying Ajanamol. But, she only took the initiative for the love which developed into very intimate relationship. They have travelled together as permitted by the first respondent. He requested that he may be allowed to have a company of Ajanamol for some time so that he can hopefully persuade her to agree for marriage. We are not inclined to grant the petitioner's request as we are convinced that Ajanamol has finally come to the decision that the petitioner is not to become her life partner.