WP(Crl).No.393 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29045 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(CRL.) NO. 393 OF 2025 PETITIONER: MUHAMMED RASHID AGED 30 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOMATH HOUSE, CHERAVALLUR ARKKAD, PERUMBADAPPU VILLAGE, NANNAMMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDUL RAHIMAN), PIN - 679575 BY ADV C.R.REKHESH SHARMA RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 MUMTHAZ MOHIYUDHEEN AGED 50 YEARS W/O MOHIYUDDEEN, RAYAMMARAKKARVEETIL HOUSE, ANJANGADI, KADAPPURAM PO, THRISSUR, PIN – 680514 OTHER PRESENT ADV.RAHUL RAJ - R2 SRI.P.M.SHAMEER - GP WP(Crl).No.393 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29045 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(Crl).No.393 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29045 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ. =================================== WP(Crl). No. 393 of 2025 =================================== Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. Petitioner alleges that his wife is being held against her wishes by the 2nd respondent, her own mother. 2. The parties were present before us today, along with the alleged detenue. 3. We interacted with the alleged detenue, who informed us that she is 21 years in age and studying Optometry at Valapad. She made it unequivocally clear to us that she is not under detention and that she is living voluntarily with her mother because, she had to flee her matrimonial home on account of the treatment that she allegedly had to experience at the hands of her husband and in-laws. 4. We also talked to the 2nd respondent – mother of the alleged detenue, who affirmed that her daughter is staying with her only because she wants to. WP(Crl).No.393 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29045 5. We then talked to the petitioner, who denied all the allegations made against him by the alleged detenue. 6. However, since we are only acting under the Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, we are not required to do anything further. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, recording the statements of the alleged detenue. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA, JUDGE Mms WP(Crl).No.393 of 2025 5 2025:KER:29045 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 393/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THEIR MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DETENUE Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP (CRL) NO. 324 / 2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 14/03/2025