Disposed

Jeyanthi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/153/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition filed by a wife to locate her missing husband filed by a wife to locate her missing husband, the detenue appeared in court, admitted leaving due to family misunderstanding, and was found living with his wife. The Court closed the petition without adjudication. relaxed and dismissed the petition. The Court found the detenue present and safe, having appeared voluntaril

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus petition was closed and no relief was granted as the petitioner located her husband who was living with her.

Jeyanthi Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.04.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.153 of 2011

¶8

Jeyanthi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State by Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Karaikudi,

¶9

Sivagangai District.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.Malar

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 1^st respondent to produce the body of the detenue Manimaran, S/o Velumani aged about 30 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai For R1 and R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of this Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J .)

¶17

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenue viz., Manimaran, filed this petition to trace her husband, who is missing from 06.02.2011.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the detenue has appeared before this Court and confessed that he went out only

¶20

¶21

because of some misunderstanding with the elders in the family. Now he has come back and he is living with the petitioner only at Karaikudi. We also enquired the petitioner/wife and she also admits that her husband has come back and she is living with him. The mother of the detenue is also present and we also advised her to take care.

¶22

In view of the above, nothing remains to adjudicate in this matter. Hence, the petition is closed.

¶23

Deputy Registrar (Accounts)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶28

2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶29

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

H.C.P.(MD)No.153 of 2011 12.04.2011

¶31

nbj NSV/2.5.11/2P/4C

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Jeyanthi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyanthi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs V.S. Kuppanna Gounter

Pappathi Ammal Vs Superintendent of Police

Ilayaraja Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Paneerselvam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Arokia Selvi Vs Incharge Commissioner of

A.Rajammal Vs the Secretary