SHAREEF T. M. Vs. ABDULLA K. B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ of habeas corpus is filed by the father and mother of the detenue. The petitioners have three children and the detenue is the second child. She was born on 25/11/1998 and she is named Nasni. She is studying in the 12th standard at Little Hearts, North Paravur.

(2.) Six months back, she complained that the first respondent was bothering her by calling her on the telephone. First petitioner made enquiries and it was noticed that he was a person having criminal antecedents. The first petitioner, who was employed at Sharjah came down and requested the first respondent not to bother his daughter. He went back on 18/5/2017. Later, he learnt that 1st respondent was still bothering her. First petitioner again came back, called upon the first respondent and asked him not to bother his daughter. The first respondent requested the first petitioner that she should be given in marriage to him. Petitioners did not agree for the same. First respondent therefore threatened him with dire consequences. On 24/5/2017, first respondent had come to the petitioners' house and demanded that he should see Nasni. He was denied access by petitioner's son. On the same day, first respondent along with his father had come to the petitioners' residence at 7 p.m along with respondents 3 to 6 and ten others. They had made a demand to give in marriage Nasni to the 1st respondent. Petitioners refused them access inside the house and they tried to break open the door. They also smashed the windows. First petitioner and his son Mohammed Ali were assaulted. People in the locality arrived at the scene and thereafter police help was sought. It is after the police had interfered in the matter that respondents 1 to 6 left the place. He further contends that, on the same day, when petitioners along with their children were proceeding to Mala in their car, the first respondent and his friends followed the petitioners' car, blocked the vehicle at about 11.45 in the night near Peruvaram temple on Mannam-Peruvaram road. After assaulting the persons inside the car, Nasni was taken by respondents 1 and 3 to 6 and others. Immediately, a compliant was lodged before the North Paravur Police station. The first petitioner's statement was taken by the police at abut 130 in the noon and a case was registered as Crime No.1051/17 under Sections 143, 148, 341, 323, 308, 366 and 506(1) and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Ext.P1 is the copy of the FIR. It is alleging that the detenue Nasni was being illegally held by respondents 1 to 6 that this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) This Court, by an interim order dated 5/6/2017 directed the police to conduct appropriate investigation and to produce the detenue before this Court. The detenue was produced before this Court on 9/6/2017. We interacted with her. According to her, she had gone with the first respondent voluntarily and she is having a love affair with him. She further stated that she would like to marry the first respondent and they have given notice of intended marriage before the Sub Registrar on 3/6/2017 and the convenient date for solemnization of the marriage is fixed on 5/7/2017. After hearing either parties, we directed the detenue to be housed at S.N.V Sadanam Hostel until further orders and the parents of the detenue alone were permitted to meet the detenue at the hostel. She was directed to be produced on 5/7/2017. On 5/7/2017, an application has been filed as IA No.10430/2017 by the counsel for petitioners seeking for a psychiatric evaluation of the detenue. The said application was allowed by order dated 5/7/2017. We directed a psychiatric evaluation of the detenue to be done by Dr. C.J. John of Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam and the police was directed to file a report of the Psychiatrist in a sealed cover. When the case was taken upon 20/7/2017, the report has been produced before this Court. In the report, the Psychiatrist had mentioned that the examination does not reveal any manic disorder or other psychotic disorders. However, taking into account the temperamental problems in childhood and teenage pointed towards her personality disorder, a diagnostic psychometry was conducted by a Clinical Psychologist Miss Mable Davis. In her report, Miss Mable Davis had given her impression of the detenue as under:-