JUDGMENT : SOUMEN SEN, CJ. 1. The interfaith relationship between the petitioner and the alleged detenue appears to be the cause for the petitioner, who claims to be in a romantic relationship with the alleged detenue, to file this petition for habeas corpus on the allegation that the alleged detenue has been illegally detained by her parents. 2. When this petition was taken up for consideration, it transpired that the alleged detenue is pursuing her studies at Pushpagiri Medical College, Thiruvalla, and, as we have been given to understand, she is presently pursuing a nursing course of roughly four years' duration, with no restriction on her movement at present. 3. We interacted with the alleged detenue online. She stated that her mobile phone is presently with her and that there is no surveillance by her parents with regard to her communication with the petitioner. However, she expressed her apprehension that her parents are not accepting the said relationship and that, in the event she returns home and resides with them, restrictions may be imposed on her interaction with the petitioner. She further expressed her apprehension that she may not be permitted to meet the petitioner if he, who is presently working abroad, visits Kerala. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It appears that the parents of the alleged detenue have not accepted the said relationship and do not want their daughter to continue with the relationship that developed through Instagram. It is a fact that the relationship originated through Instagram and that the alleged detenue has met the petitioner only twice. The parents of the alleged detenue are of the view that it is premature on her part to decide to establish a long-term relationship with the petitioner, who is stated to be working abroad. According to them, the alleged detenue ought to concentrate on her studies, as she has already lost two precious years, and the period of acquaintance is too short for her to take such an important decision, which, in their apprehension, may adversely affect the future of their daughter. It is further submitted on behalf of the parents of the alleged detenue that the interaction between the petitioner and the 5 th respondent, father of the alleged detenue, was unpleasant. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the parents of the alleged detenue that the interaction between the petitioner and the 5 th respondent, father of the alleged detenue, was unpleasant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged detenue has confessed and admitted her strong liking for the petitioner. The petitioner is well settled and is willing to marry the alleged detenue and it is further submitted that the alleged detenue can continue her studies from her in-laws’ house after marriage. It is submitted that, having regard to the fact that both the petitioner and the alleged detenue are mature, the parents of the alleged detenue cannot act or cause any physical restraint so as to prevent interaction between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. 7. In our interaction with the alleged detenue, she has clearly and unequivocally stated that she is mature and she wants to marry the petitioner. It may not be to the liking of her parents. Although we feel that she must complete her studies and become economically independent before choosing a life partner, which, in our view, is a more mature decision, we cannot rely upon our own perception of such a relationship of the alleged detenue. The alleged detenue is mature and she has to take a conscious decision. Whether she should accept the advice of her parents is for her to decide, as she alone has to bear the consequences of any wrong decision. That the decision could go wrong, may not be correct also. 8. We are not here to analyse the bonding that has developed between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. However, we feel that the parents of the petitioner and the alleged detenue should interact and, if required, through a mediator with the assistance of the Kerala High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, so that the present acrimony could be resolved. In the event the alleged detenue feels that her movement is likely to be restricted if she visits her home, it is open for her to stay at the nursing hostel during the entire tenure of her nursing course. The learned counsel for the 6 th respondent submitted that all financial and other facilities required for her stay in the hostel would be provided until her marriage with the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the 6 th respondent submitted that all financial and other facilities required for her stay in the hostel would be provided until her marriage with the petitioner. 9. In view of the submission that the passport and other documents of the alleged detenue are in the custody of her parents, we direct the 6 th respondent to hand over all the original documents to the Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, along with a list of documents, to be counter-signed by the Advocate-on-Record for both the parties. Any other document in the possession of the 6 th respondent, which may be required by the alleged detenue, shall likewise be made over to the alleged detenue. The college authorities shall not restrain the petitioner from visiting the alleged detenue in the hostel or office, upon proper identification and after obtaining her consent. With the above, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.