KRISHNA RAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents 2 to 4,"or such of them having the custody of Ratnaprabha " ;,to have her body produced before court and for a direction that she be set at liberty from illegal custody.The petitioner is Krishna Raj aged 27,said to be assisting his father in the latter's hotel business(Royal Lunch Home)at Cannanore The first respondent is the State of Kerala.Respondents 2 and 3 are the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police,Trichur.The 4th respondent,Ratnakaran,is the father of the girl Ratnaprabha.He is also said to be a resident of Cannanore,though a Councillor of the Tellicherry Municipality,the President of the Jnanodaya Yogam at the same place,and also part -owner of the Prabha Talkies of Tellicherry.

(2.) THE averments in the petition are the following: - The 4th respondent used to visit the Royal Lunch Home and a deep acquaintance developed between the families of the petitioner and the 4th respondent.The petitioner's car was being frequently used by the 4th respondent for the travels and tours of himself and his family.The frequent contacts resulted in the petitioner meeting Ratnaprabha,who was then a Pre -Degree student.The acquaintance developed into abiding affection and intimate love.The girl used to go about in the petitioner's car and on such occasions,photographs were being taken.The petitioner's mother and the mother of Ratnaprabha "were happy over a marriage alliance "between the boy and the girl.After the girl attained majority they married and the marriage was registered before the Executive Officer,Kuthuparamba Panchayat,on 17th January 1979.When the 4th respondent heard about this he was annoyed;and therefore the petitioner and his wife decided to live separately hoping that the misunderstanding would disappear in course of time.The petitioner's eldest brother was also about to be married.Krishnaraj and Ratnaprabha decided to wait till that was over.That marriage was celebrated on 19th April 1979.On 21st April 1979,well -wishers of both the families inter­vened and held talks to find out a happy solution,but the 4th respondent remained unhelpful.The petitioner and Ratnaprabha then decided to go to Guruvayoor Temple and pray for a happy married life.They accordingly went to Trichur on 22nd April 1979.They occupied room No.5 of the Premier Lodge,Trichur and the petitioner's driver,Vijayan,occupied room No.10.On the morning of the next day(23rd April 1979 ),at about 8 a.m .,the 3rd respondent,Sub inspector of Police reached the room in Premier Lodge,accompanied by 8 Constables and the 4th respondent.The Sub Inspector wanted Krishna Raj and Prabha to proceed to the Police Station.Prabha had with her an international passport showing her date of birth.The marriage certificate was also there.Still,the Sub -Inspector took them to the Police Station.In the Station,the petitioner and Prabha answered all the questions.The documents were also shown.The Sub Inspector seemed to be satisfied that Prabha was a major and that the two had got married.By that time,however,the Circle Inspector came to the Station.He behaved "in a rough and unseemly way ''to the petitioner and his wife.The petitioner was threatened with bodily injury unless he was willing to obey the Circle Inspector.In the meanwhile,driver Vijayan brought Advocate Sri Subramoniyam to the Police Station and the latter tried to convince the Circle Inspector that there was no justification for detaining the petitioner or his wife.The Police Officer pretended to be convinced,and assured the Advocate that they would soon be released.But after the advocate left the Station with that assurance,the Circle Inspector changed his attitude,and started behaving in an extremely rough and cruel manner.He said that the girl would not be permitted to go with the petitioner.The petitioner objected and then the Circle Inspector adopted another device.He stated that the 4th respondent would execute a Kychit agreeing to arrange for the solemnisation of his daughter's marriage with the petitioner on or before 29th April 1979.The Kychit was drafted and the petitioner and his wife were coerced to sign it.Of course,the 4th respondent also signed it.The petitioner had to return from the Police Station alone,under the above circumstances.Ever since that time,Ratnaprabha has been deprived of her personal liberty.All attempts by the petitioner to see her failed.Though the 4th respondent had given the undertaking in the Kychit,he was absconding from his house at Cannanore.There was reliable information that the girl was being kept under illegal restraint,deprived of her liberty.It was 'understood 'that the girl had had a fracture and that she was being subjected to violent and cruel treatment.She was not being permitted to see anyone or to have any contact with the outside world.The police had arranged to separate the girl from the petitioner at the behest of the 4th respondent.The girl had attained majority,and the respondents had no right in law to restrain her.As there was doubt as to which among the respondents 2 to 4 were having custody of the girl,the prayer was to issue the writ "directed to all the respondents " ;.

(3.) THE 4th respondent,in his counter -affidavit,denied the allegation that he was frequently visiting the Royal Lunch Home and making use of the petitioner's car for the travels of himself and his family."The reason,occasion and circumstances for the result of such relationship between the petitioner and the said Ratnaprabha "were concocted,according to him.The fact that photographs were being taken with an automatic camera showed that there was no "mutual agreement "for taking them.The averments regarding marriage were vague;no marriage had been solemnised.The certificate from the Kuthuparamba Panchayat amounted to concoction of a document for being used later.The deponent was unaware of the document "before the same was mentioned when the Police questioned from Trichur " ;.There was no occasion at all for others to intervene and try to persuade him to agree to the alliance.Having come to know that Prabha was missing and had gone to Trichur with the petitioner under the pretext of seeing Pooram Exhibition,the deponent made enquiries at various places and found out that she was at the Premier Lodge at Trichur.He then filed a petition before the Police for her rescue.Since people gathered before the Lodge when the Police was questioning the petitioner and Prabha,they were asked to proceed to the Police Station.At the Station they stated that they had "registered in the Panchayat " ;,but they also admitted that no marriage had taken place.They were proceeding to Guruvayoor for that purpose.Prabha had also told him later that it was to save herself from the situation that "they told in this way and as is advised by the petitioner " ;.The petitioner and Prabha had produced no documents before the Police.The Police was fair and they had used no threats or coercion.The Kychit was executed not to mislead,but with a view to see that the girl "was sent back with the proper guardian in the context,since no marriage has ever taken place,proved,admitted or marriage certificate produced " ;.The Kychit was executed with the very honest intention of giving Prabha in marriage to the petitioner according to the custom of the community,but "the mind of Prabha was changed "in the meanwhile.On 22nd April 79 while she was with the petitioner,she had found a letter in his box addressed to him by a married woman.This had shocked her.The petitioner returned alone from the Police Station because Prabha had preferred to go with her father.She had not been deprived of her liberty.The petitioner had not attempted to see her afterwards;he knew that Prabha had realised his true colour.The petitioner had not attempted to meet the deponent also,and he was in station during the time specified in the Kychit.Prabha had had no fracture.There was no violent or cruel treatment and she was never prevented from seeing any person or contacting others.She had come to know that the petitioner was not of good character and she wanted to avoid him.After return from Trichur,other people at Gannanore had also told her stories current about the petitioner.This aggra­vated her shock and she wanted to go away from the place.She went out of the State with Sreenivasan,brother of the deponent,on 27th April 1979 "in order to avoid further troubles at the hands of the petitioner.Ratnaprabha was a major and a father could only advise her.She had gone out of the State and she did not want to communicate her address to the father or any other member of the family.The petition itself was filed to malign Ratnaprabha.Rule 160 had not been complied with,and the petition was defective.The Court had also no territorial jurisdiction over a person who had gone out voluntarily.