Rashiq KS v. The District Police Chief, Palakkad; The Station House Officer, Mankara Police Station; Manomithra Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd.; Suresh Kumar P.R.; Shijith K V

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V`** ``` & THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ TUESDAY,THE11[TH]DAYOFJUNE2024/21STJYAISHTA,1946 ``` ## **`WP(CRL.) NO. 246 OF 2024`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` RASHIQKS AGED29YEARS KUDILINGALHOUSE,THOTTAM,JAINIMEDU, VADAKKANTHARAPOPALAKKAD,PIN-678012 ``` ``` BYADVS. CHRISTYTHOMAS T.U.ANUKRISHNA ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` - **`1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANKARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`3 MANOMITHRA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES PVT. LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR , MALAMPUZHA, PANNIMADA,, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678621`** - **`4 SURESHKUMAR.P.R AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER PULAKKAL, ORAMPALLAM, MANKARA, MANKARI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678613`** - **`5 SHIJITH K V AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SON OF VIJAYAN PERUMKULANGARA, KOTTAYI PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678572`** 2 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 ## **`ADDL. R6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682030.`** ``` (ADDL.R6ISSUOMOTUIMPLEADEDASPER ORDERDATED11.06.2024INWP(CRL.) NO.246/2024) ``` ``` BYADVS. ``` ``` MAITREYISACHCHIDANANDAHEGDEHEGDE V.A.JOHNSON(VARIKKAPPALLIL)VA ANJALIANILA.(K/859/2021) ASHISHANTONYFRANCIS(K/1337/2023) ``` ``` OTHERPRESENT: ``` ``` SRIPMSHAMEER,GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CRIMINAL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORFINAL HEARINGON11.06.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: - i. Issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to produce the body of detenue, named Dhanya P.S, aged 34, who is held in illegal detention by the 3rd respondent, before this Hon’ble Court and set her at liberty; - ii. Issue an appropriate writ, orders or directions commanding the 1st respondent to ensure personal safety and protection of the petitioner and the detenue against the illegal acts of 3rd 4th and 5th respondent, in the interest of justice; - iii. Issue a direction that the detenue may be permitted to be produced before any medical board to prove the sound mind of the detenue. 2. According to the petitioner, Mrs.X (name withheld for privacy reasons), is a married woman. The 4th respondent is her husband and he is a police officer. The 5th respondent is her father. It is contended that the relationship between Mrs. X and her husband was strained and on 13.01.2024, she left her matrimonial home. A complaint was lodged before the police by the 5th respondent. The detenu was traced out and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The detenu was released by the learned Magistrate as she stated that she had left her 4 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 matrimonial home on her own free will. It is contended that the family members forcefully took her and are keeping her under illegal detention. A friend of Mrs. X has handed over a letter written by Mrs.X that she is being illegally detained. Though a complaint was lodged before the police, no action has been taken. It is in the afore circumstances that this Writ Petition is filed seeking direction. 3. When the matter had come up for consideration before this Court, this Court had directed the production of Mrs. X before this Court. When Mrs. X was produced, she was directed to undergo counseling at the Family Counselling Centre. After numerous interactions, as this Court felt that Mrs. X was not in a balanced state of mind to take an appropriate decision, she was ordered to be accommodated at the SAKHI, One Stop Centre at Kakkanad. The Counsellor was also directed to have constant interaction with Mrs. X. Later, Mrs. X was produced before this Court on 19.3.2024 and this Court had ordered the counseling to continue. 4. On 11.06.2024, when it was brought to our notice that detenu was still housed at the Sakhi One Stop Centre, Kakkanad, we directed the production of Mrs. X before us. 5 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 5. We have interacted with Mrs. X, her husband, her father and also the Project Coordinator attached to the Victim Rights Centre- KeLSA. Mrs.X stated before us that she is an adult lady and she does not intend to go with her husband or parents. She has her own reasons for the same. She stated before us that she wants to meet her child, for which she intends to file an appropriate application before the Family Court. From our interaction with the detenu, we are satisfied that Mrs. X is a adult lady who is capable of taking sound decisions for and on her behalf. We do not think from our interaction that the detenu is suffering from any emotional turmoil to the extent of clouding her decision making. She was composed before us and stated before us in unequivocal terms that she is not desirous of joining either her husband or her parents. She also stated before us that though she was having no psychiatric issues, she was admitted to a psychiatric hospital and was also forced to undergo counselling sessions. 6. The Apex Court in **Devu G.Nair v. State of Kerala[1]** has laid down the guidelines for courts while dealing with habeas corpus petitions. It was held that while evaluating the locus standi of a partner or friend, the court must not make a roving enquiry into the precise nature of the relationship between the alleged detenu and her friend. In > 1 [2024 SCC OnLine SC 351] 6 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 that view of the matter, the petitioner herein has locus standi to approach this Court seeking relief. It has also been held that if the detenu expresses her wish to not go back to her parents or her husband, her wishes are to be restricted. It has also been held that the court shall not pass any direction for counselling or parental care. The limited role of the court is to ascertain the will of the person. The courts are also not required to adopt counselling as a means of changing the mind of the alleged detenu. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Shafin Jahan[2]** has held that the pivotal purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without the sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge. The role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice, and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. 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. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, provided > 2 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 7 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the inquiry and determination have to come to an end. ## 8. In **Anuj Garg and Others[3]** , the Apex Court had occasion to hold as under in paragraph 31 of the judgment; “31. … It is their life; subject to constitutional, statutory, and social interdicts—a citizen of India should be allowed to live her life on her own terms.” ## 9. In **Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi**[4] , the Apex Court held that once a woman was 18 years of age, no fetters could be placed on an individual's choice on where and with whom she wished to reside. It was observed: “…Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter.” 10. We are of the view that Mrs. X has taken her personal life choices and if that be the case, we have no other go but to respect her right of choice. Her rights to life, liberty, and dignity must be upheld in > 3 Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and others, [2008 (3) SCC 1] > 4 (1976) 3 SCC 234 8 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 deciding the matter. As the petitioner, an adult, has expressed her wish to live her life as she chooses, no constraints can be imposed on her. 11. In view of the desire expressed by Mrs. X, we do not think that Mrs. X should be detained any further in the SAKHI, One Stop Centre, Kakkanad. We set Mrs. X at liberty. This Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** Sd/- **P.M.MANOJ JUDGE** APM/11/6/24 9 W.P.(Crl.) No.246 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 246/2024`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS ``` ``` ExhibitP1 ``` ``` ATRUECOPYOFTHELETTERSENTBYTHE DETENUETOTHEPETITIONERISPRODUCED ``` ``` RESPONDENTEXHIBITS ``` ``` ExhibitR3(a)THEPSYCHOMETRICEVALUATIONREPORTOF MRS.DHANYADATED19.02.2024PREPAREDBY ASHIQUEK. ```