G.Iyyappan v. The State rep.by1.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.2. Sangupandi3
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 2222. The petitioner is the paternal uncle of the detenue-Veeralakshmi, aged about 17 years. According to the petitioner, the detenue is his brother's daughter and his brother is in Dubai working as Carpenter. The detenue was in his custody and he is looking after her…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 23.09.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANHabeas Corpus Petition(MD)No.715 of 2011G.Iyyappan.. Petitioner Vs.The State rep.by1.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.2. Sangupandi3. Subramani4. Petchiyammal.. RespondentsPRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the first respondent to produce the person or body of the minorVeeralakshmi, aged about 17 years, daughter of the petitioner'sbrother from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 4before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.S.MuruganFor respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.V.Kannan for R.2: Mr.R.Alagumanifor DetenueORDER(Order of the Court was made by ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.)This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the petitioner to direct first respondent to produce the person or body of the minor Veeralakshmi, aged about 17 years, daughter of thepetitioner's brother from the illegal custody of the respondents2 to 4 before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
The petitioner is the paternal uncle of the detenue-Veeralakshmi, aged about 17 years. According to the petitioner, the detenue is his brother's daughter and his brother is in Dubai working as Carpenter. The detenue was in his custody and he is looking after her as a guardian. She was studying B.Com(CA) Ist year in Devangar College, Aruppukottai and she is ahosteller.3. According to the petitioner, on 30.07.2011, he brought the detenue from the college hostel to Manamadurai and sent her back to the hostel on 03.08.2011. He was informed by the authorities of the College that she did not come to the hostel. Thereafter, they have searched her and they were unable to locate her and a complaint was given to the first respondent suspecting that the second respondent had kidnapped her with the help of the respondents 3 and 4.4. Today, the detenue was produced before us and her father was also present who has returned from Dubai. Weenquired the detenue and she stated that she is unwilling to gowith her father. However, she is interested to pursue her studies by staying in the hostel. Her father also agreed for the same. She expressed her willingness to reside with hergrand-parents' in their house who are living separately in the same village. Her statement reveals that she is not under illegal confinement of anyone much less the respondents 2 to 4.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the detenue is directed to go with her grandmother and she is permitted to pursue her studies by staying in the hostel and during her holidays, she should stay at her grand-parents' house.6. The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/-Deputy Registrar(Writs)/True Copy/Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai+One CC to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.No.33251sslrl/4c – 18.10.2011 HCP(MD)No.715 of 2011 23.09.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.