E. Abdul Latheef v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District, and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.
T.V. Anilkumar, J.
Judgment Date: 2019-02-20
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; the alleged detenue is set at liberty to go along with the 2nd respondent, as desired by her.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; detenue allowed to accompany the 2nd respondent as per her choice.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

E. Abdul Latheef

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District
Sri. Noufal
Sri. Nissam
Smt. Arifa
Sri. Abdul Basheer

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Brijesh Mohan
• Smt. Resmi G. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K. Siju

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition (criminal) filed under Article 226/227 by the father of a girl named Farsana seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenue and release her from alleged illegal detention by respondents 2 to 5. The detenue was reported missing on 26.1.2019 and the police registered Ext. P1 under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. On appearance, the detenue stated she has completed 18 years of age on 4.10.2018 and that she developed an intimate relationship with respondent 2 over the past three years. She had left her parental home previously and, after an agreement to marry after three years, returned, only to be subjected to alleged harassment and pressure for marriages with others. She now asserts her wish to live with respondent 2 and indicates her desire to marry him after he attains the age of 21. The court invokes the principle from the Supreme Court in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (AIR 2018 SC 2254) that the court’s duty is to ensure the detenue’s independent choice and release from illegal restraint, provided detention is unlawful. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, and the detenue is allowed to accompany respondent 2 according to her own choice.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Liberty and independent choice of the detenue must be respected.
Right to live together or enter into live-in relationships is recognized when the detenue is an adult and chooses to do so (as illustrated by Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC 2254).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his daughter/detenue was missing and is undergoing illegal restraint by respondents 2–5. He seeks production of the detenue and her liberty, arguing that even if the parties are not legally competent to marry, the detenue—an adult—has the right to live with the person of her choice; the petition relies on the police report (Ext. P1) under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act and on constitutional protections of liberty.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents deny illegal detention. They state the detenue left home due to personal relationship with respondent 2 and now wishes to live with him after express consent and planning of marriage after he attains age 21. They emphasize that the detenue is of majority and that the relationship is consensual. They rely on the principle that liberty of the detenue should be respected, provided no illegal detention can be established; the court’s finding relies on this principle and the will of the detenue.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nandakumar and another v. State of Kerala and others	AIR 2018 SC 2254	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the court’s role is to ascertain the detenue’s independent choice and to release from illegal restraint; it underscores liberty and the right to live with the partner even if the parties may not be legally competent to wed, thereby guiding the present decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940** **WP(Crl.).No. 65 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **E.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. ISMAILKUTTY, MULLETH HOUSE, NORTH OF M.S. M. H.S KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM 690 502.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| |---|---| ||**KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690**| ||**502.**| |**2**|**SRI. NOUFAL,**| ||**AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O. NISSAM,**| ||**MR MANZIL KOCHAYYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, PUNNAKULAM WARD,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 518.**| |**3**|**SRI. NISSAM,**| ||**AGED 45 YEARS**| ||**S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY,**| ||**MR MANZIL KOCHAYYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, PUNNAKULAM WARD,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 518.**| |**4**|**SMT. ARIFA,**| ||**W/O. NISSAN,**| ||**MR MANZIL KOCHAYYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, PUNNAKULAM WARD,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 518.**| W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 2 **5 SRI. ABDUL BASHEER, S/O. KHALEELUDDINKUTTY, PUTHENPURACKKAL, KADATHUR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY 690 523.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP SRI.K.B.RAMANAND** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 3 ## **C.K.ABDUL REHIM & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.** **--------------------------------W.P.(Crl) No. 65 of 2019 ---------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of February, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.** The father of a girl named Farsana (hereinafter referred to as the alleged detenue) is the petitioner herein, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for commanding production of the corpus of the alleged detenue and to set her at liberty from the alleged illegal detention of respondents 2 to 5. 2. Brief averments are that, the alleged detenue was seen missing from the house of the petitioner on the early morning hours of 26.1.2019. Based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent had registered W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 4 Ext.P1 case with respect to missing of the alleged detenue, under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioner came to know that the 2[nd] respondent is behind the missing of the alleged detenue and that he is keeping the alleged detenue under confinement. Hence the above writ petition is filed. 3. On receipt of notice from this court, the 2[nd] respondent appeared and produced the alleged detenue. The respondents 2 to 4 are represented through a lawyer. 4. When we interacted, the alleged detenue said that she has completed the age of 18 years on 4.10.2018. She said that, she developed acquaintance and intimacy with the 2[nd] respondent since the last three years. Since the family of the alleged detenue was not willing to accept their relationship, she left the parental home on an earlier occasion, on 2.1.2019. Thereafter, based on an understanding arrived, the petitioner had agreed for solemnizing their marriage after a period of three years. Accordingly she went back to the parental home. But the petitioner and the other family members went back from W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 5 their promise and started torturing and harassing the alleged detenue. They also started proposals for marriage of the alleged detenue with some other persons. Therefore the alleged detenue had left the parental home again, on 25.1.2019. It is stated that, now she is residing with the 2[nd] respondent in the house of one of his relatives at Changanassery. According to the alleged detenue, they are planing to get married each other, after the 2[nd] respondent attains the age of 21 years. The alleged detenue had emphatically denied the allegations that she is under the illegal confinement of the respondents 2 to 5. She expressed her strong desire to go along with the 2[nd] respondent and to live with him. 5. We take note of the fact the 2[nd] respondent has not yet attained the marriageable age. But the alleged detenue is a girl attained majority. She is having absolute liberty to have her own choice with respect to her life, even if it is for a 'live-in-relationship'. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in _**Nandakumar and another v. State of Kerala and others**_ W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 6 _**(AIR 2018 SC 2254)**_ held that, the role of the Court is to see that the detenue is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice, and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The issue will be a different one when the detention is not illegal. It is held that, what is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that, even if the parties are not competent to enter into a wedlock, they have the right to live together even outside the wedlock. 7. Considering the legal position remaining settled as above, we are not is a position to restrain liberty of the alleged detenue, which is left absolutely to her choice. Since the alleged detenue had expressed her strong desire to continue her life with the 2[nd] respondent, we do not find any reason to hold that she is illegally detained by the respondents 2 to 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 7 above writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The alleged detenue is set at liberty to go along with the 2[nd] respondent, as desired by her. Sd/- **C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE** **Sd/-** **T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE** al/- W.P.(Crl) No.65 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 250 DATED 26.1.2019 REGISTERED BY THE KAYAMKULAM POLICE.** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.S TO JUDGE AL/-