RAJMOHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What are the limits of the decisional autonomy of an adult daughter who has attained rnajority Is she obliged to be in the 'custody' of her parents until marriage Can she be kept in such 'custody' against her will and wishes Cannot jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus be invoked by this Court when a grievance is made before it that the parent is detaining his adult daughter against her will and desire Is the law to close its eyes assuming that the parent can and does no wrong in dealing with his adult daughter in the way he thinks best These questions arise for consideration in this writ petition where the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, Advocate P. C. Sasidharan, questions the jurisdiction of this Court to proceed any further with this petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable.

(2.) It will be apposite at the outset to refer to the basic facts in the light of which these questions arise for consideration. We have ascertained the relevant facts from the pleadings of the parties and the documents made available for perusal of the Court. Ms. Shamnamol, daughter of the 6th respondent, is an adult major woman, she having attained the age of majority, i.e. 18 years. She was born on 20/12/1989. The petitioner herein is a young man, aged above 21 years, he having been born on 18/06/1988. The petitioner and the said Shamnamol (hereinafter referred to as the 'alleged detenue') were friendly from very early days. The petitioner is a Hindu by religion whereas the alleged detenue is a Muslim. While she was a plus one student; she allegedly had fallen in love with the petitioner and her parents, on coming to know of that relationship, had taken her away to Sharjah, where the 6th respondent is employed. After completing her plus two course there, she came back to India and joined B.Sc (Maths) course at the T. K. M. College, Kollam. She was a first year student of B.Sc (Maths) in that college. She was residing in the women's hostel. The alleged detenue and the petitioner continued their relationship secretly. The parents of the alleged detenue were not aware of such relationship. They happened to come to know of that relationship and thereafter apprehending that the alleged detenue may forcibly be given away in marriage to someone, the alleged detenue eloped from her house with the petitioner on 29/08/09. A complaint was filed and Crime No. 511 of 2009 was registered at the Kilimanoor Police Station under the caption 'woman missing'. The petitioner and the alleged detenue went away to some place secretly and it is alleged that marriage was performed and solemnised between them on 01/09/09. It is stated that the marriage took place in a temple in Tamil Nadu. Though they allegedly wanted to get their marriage registered they could not, for various reasons, get their marriage registered.

(3.) The chase became hot and the petitioner and the alleged detenue realised the need to appear before the police. Accordingly, on 02/09/09, they surrendered before the police. On 03/09/2009, the alleged detenue was produced before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate evidently, after satisfying himself that there was no element of illegal detention, allowed the alleged detenue to go freely from the Court and she allegedly went along with the petitioner. The petitioner and the alleged detenue started residence together.