Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 22.3.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALIH.C.P(MD)No.194 of 2011andM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011V.Mani .. Petitioner vs.
The Inspector of General Police, South Zone, Madurai.
The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi.
Subbiah5.S.Amma Ponnu6.Pradeep7.Nandhini .. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the 1st to 3rd respondents tosecure the detenu and produce the body and person of the detenu, thepetitioner's wife S.Kavitha, W/o.V.Mani, aged 25 years before this Court, illegally detained by the 4th to 7th respondents and set her at libertyforthwith. For petitioner : Mr.P.Pethu RajeshFor respondents 1 to 3: Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, Addl. Public ProsecutorFor respondents 4 to 7: Mr.R.Anand ORDER(Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J)The petitioner has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition to tracehis wife who is stated to have married him on 3.2.2011 at ArulmiguViswanathaswamy Thirukoil at Ottapidaram Village, Thoothukudi District. The parents of the detenue did not accept the marriage as both of thembelong to a different community. The petitioner's parents, on the otherhand, accepted the marriage. The detenue/alleged wife had completed herM.C.A in a Private College in Sivakasi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The grievance of the petitioner is that, on 4.3.2011, thedetenue received a call from her parents stating that some one wasseriously ill and on account of that, she was asked to come to theirhouse. Therefore, the detenue was dropped by the petitioner at the houseof the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the detenue did not come back homeand the whereabouts of the detenue is not known till date. It is thecase of the petitioner that the respondents 4 to 7 have illegallydetained her. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.3. On notice, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hasproduced the detenue before this Court.4. We interacted with the detenue, who claims to be 25 years oldand has completed her M.C.A.,. She submitted that she is with her parentsnow and she would like to be with her parents only and she does not wantto go with the petitioner.5. The petitioner was also present before this Court and he wasalso appraised of what the detenue has informed the Court. 6. Therefore, while recording the fact that the detenue is not inillegal custody by any one and she is with her parents/respondents hereinon her own, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed as nothing furthercould be considered in this. Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. No costs. Sd/-Deputy Registrar (L.A)/True Copy/Assistant Registrar To1.The Inspector of General Police, South Zone, Madurai. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3. The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+ 1 cc to Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, Advocate, SR No.7718H.C.P.(MD)No.194 of 2011andM.P.(MD)No.1 of 201122.03.2011(asvm)RJ/11.4.112p/6c
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.