MURALEEDHARAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the father of the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue is his daughter. We have passed interim orders dated 5.3.2012 and 9.3.2012. Pursuant to order dated 9.3.2012 the alleged detenue is produced today. Today, the alleged detenue would tell us that she would like to go with her father. The 3rd respondent is also present. We heard the learned counsel appearing.

(2.) IN the light of the stand which the alleged detenue revealed to us and which is disclosed to the 3rd respondent we close the writ petition by permitting the alleged detenue to go with the petitioner/father. We make it clear that, the petitioner will not compel the alleged detenue for any marriage against her wishes. The alleged detenue would also tell us that she would like to prosecute her studies. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner will see that the alleged detenue continues with her studies. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there will be no harassment to the third respondent. IN case the third respondent complains any threat to his life from the petitioner before the first respondent, the first respondent will enquire into the matter and if the complaint is found to be genuine, will afford adequate protection to the third respondent against the petitioner.