Jamilan v. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Suburban Police Chennai & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23-6-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANHCP No.503 of 2009Jamilan.. Petitionervs1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Suburban Police Chennai2.The Inspector of Police Avadi, Chennai.3.Ashokan Soloman.. RespondentsHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directingthe respondents to produce the petitioner's wife Preethi, aged 21years, before this Court and set her at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.J.SureshFor Respondents: Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 and 2 Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R3ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner oneJamilan has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of habeascorpus.2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Courtheard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor and also the learned Counsel for the thirdrespondent.3.The petitioner and the alleged detenue Preethi are presentbefore the Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the avermentsin the affidavit and also the submissions made by the Counsel for thepetitioner, is that the petitioner married the said Preethi, thedaughter of the third respondent, on 26.5.2008, as per the ChristianMarriage Act; that they have been living together; that the thirdrespondent did not like the same; that he raised his objections; thatunder the circumstances, they shifted the residence from Tirunelvelito Madras; that they have been residing at Avadi; that they have beenliving happily; that while the matter stood thus, on 4.4.2009, thethird respondent along with others came in a Car and abducted boththe petitioner and his wife Preethi; that they were taken to ParaSalai at Kerala where he was tortured; that thereafter, she was takenin a Car; that she is now kept under the illegal custody of the thirdrespondent; that under the circumstances, he came back to Madras andlodged a complaint before the second respondent police; but, theyrefused to take the same; that no action has been taken, though itwas brought to the notice of the police that she is being kept underthe illegal custody of the third respondent, and hence the petitionerhad no option than to move this Court for the issuance of a writ ofhabeas corpus.5.In the last hearing, the third respondent, when he madeappearance, made a request to the Court that she is writing MBBSexamination, and he could be permitted to produce the said Preethibefore the Court after 18.6.2009. Accordingly, the matter isscheduled this day. All are present. 6.The Court enquired Preethi. According to her, the petitionerherein was a neighbour, and she was taken to the Office of theRegistrar of Marriages at Tirunelveli, to be as a witness, but aftergetting signature, she came to know that it was a marriageregistered, and immediately she informed the same to the father, andthereafter O.P. was filed before the Court of civil law atTirunelveli for declaration that the marriage registered was null andvoid, and the petitioner was set ex-parte, and an application to setaside the ex-parte order was filed, and now the proceedings arepending. She would further add that she never stayed with him evenone day either after the alleged marriage or on the day when it wasregistered or any one day either at Tirunelveli or at Madras. Shewould further state that she is not willing to go with him since sheis not his married wife, and further she wants to go with her fatherwho is present before the Court.7.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there wasactually a marriage between the petitioner and the said Preethi, andthey have been living together, and the third respondent is aninfluential person, and under the circumstances, they came over toMadras and were living happily, and even then, there was interferenceby the third respondent, and he took her forcibly along with him, andunder the circumstances, a complaint was given; but, no action hasbeen taken yet. In short, the learned Counsel reiterated theaverments in the affidavit in support of the petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The Court considered the submissions and looked into thematerials available. 9.It is not in controversy that the alleged detenue Preethi wasborn on 16.10.1988, and hence as on today she is a major. When sheis enquired, she would state that she was taken to the Office of theRegistrar of Marriages where she was asked to be a witness, andthereafter she came to know that her signature was obtained as if shehas married the petitioner. Contrarily, the petitioner has comeforward to state that actually there was a marriage between them.Now the factum of marriage cannot be gone into by this Court. Evenassuming that there was a marriage, the petitioner cannot comeforward with this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpussince it is outside the scope to be decided as to the factum ofmarriage, and he must go to a Court of civil law for necessaryrelief. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the thirdrespondent has filed an OP before the Civil forum at Tirunelveliseeking a declaration that the marriage alleged by the petitioner wasnull and void, and he was also set ex-parte. It is admitted by thepetitioner's side that an application has been filed to set aside theex-parte order before the said civil forum. All would be indicativeof the fact that the third respondent has actually sought for adeclaration that the alleged marriage is null and void, and thematter is actually pending before the Court of civil law. Under thestated circumstances, the contentions put forth by the petitioner'sside that she came over to Madras and was also staying with him, andthe third respondent came over to Madras and took her forcibly, andshe is now under his illegal custody are to be rejected as false.Further the said Preethi is found to be a major. She would alsosubmit that she is now staying with her father voluntarily. Allthese would go to show that the petition has no legs to stand. 10.In the light of what is stated above, the consideration ofthe request of the petitioner for issuance of a writ of habeas corpusdoes not arise. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition isdismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv/To:1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Suburban Police Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Inspector of Police Avadi, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.+1 CC to Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.NO.25457 HCP No.503 of 2009GGK {CO}TP/3.7.2009.