Dismissed

Vijayalakshmi v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC11 Mar 2011HCP(MD)/171/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a wife, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking production of her husband to set him at liberty. The court examined the facts, noting the petitioner's refusal to return due to safety concerns and allegations of her husband's remarriage. Finding she was not prepared to go with him, the court held there was no illegal custody.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition was dismissed as the detenu was not in illegal custody.

Vijayalakshmi Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.03.2011
CORAM:

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.(MD)No.171 of 2011

¶5

Vijayalakshmi

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi,

¶9

 Ramnad District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Paramakudi,

¶11

 Ramanathapuram.

¶12

3.Muthuaiah

¶13

4.Valli

¶14

5.Prabakaran

¶15

6.Ponnusamy

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to produce
the body of the detenue namely Murugesan son of Muthuaiah aged
32 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner: Mr.N.Anandakumar

¶19

For Respondents: Mr.P.N.Pandidurai,APP

¶20

 No appearance for R3 to 6

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.)

¶23

This petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenue namely, Murugesan son of Muthuaiah, aged 32 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶24

2.The case of the petitioner is that she got married to one Murugesan son of Muthuaiah on 09.09.2002 at Sambhakulam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. They lived happily for 2 years and thereafter, her father-in-law the third respondent herein along with the respondents 4 and 5, who are the sister and sister's husband, started harassing the petitioner on some petty quarrels not able to hear the torture, she gave a complaint to the 2^nd respondent in the year 2007

¶25

¶26

itself against respondents 3 to 5. The 2^nd respondent conducted an enquiry and advised her in-laws and compromised the dispute between them and closed the enquiry.

¶27

3.Thereafter, her husband Murugesan went to Tiruppur for sometime and promised to take her with him. After 6 months, he further asked her to wait for some more time and dropped her in her parents’ house and he did not contact her. Thereafter, in the year 2008, her husband Murugesan came to her house and informed that his father and sisters compelled him to marry some other girl but he was not interested. However, he assured her that he would get a job and then come and take her. On 22.10.2010 he came to her parental house and stayed with her on 24.10.2010. At about 6.00 p.m. on 24.10.2010, the respondents 3 to 5 came to her house and forcibly taken her husband. Therefore, apprehending danger to his life at the hands of the respondents 3 to 5, she filed a complaint before the 2^nd respondent herein but no F.I.R. registered. Since no action was taken by the 2^nd respondent, she has filed the present petition.

¶28

4.On notice to the respondents, the said detenu/Murugesan was brought before this Court today. The petitioner is also present before this Court along with her parents. The sister of the detenue/Murugesan is also present before this Court.

¶29

5.We enquired all the parties concerned. The detenu/Murugesan is not having any complaint against the petitioner and he is willing to take her and live with her. The petitioner is a major, aged about 26 years and she is not willing to go with him for the reason that she is apprehensive of her life with her husband and his relatives, as earlier there was an attempt to kill her also. Moreover, the petitioner adds that she has learnt from reliable sources that her husband is married again and living with another woman and has a child also. Therefore, though the detenu/Murugesan is ready and willing to live with the petitioner, she is not willing to go with him.

¶30

6.In the light of the above facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the detenu/Murugesan has been produced before this Court and the petitioner has seen him and also she is not prepared to go along with him, we are satisfied that the detenu/Murugesan is not in illegal custody and this petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly this H.C.P. Dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Deputy Registrar(LA)

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

To

¶38

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramnad District.

¶39

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram.

¶40

Nbj
rl/3c – 27.4.2011

¶41

H.C.P.(MD)No.171 of 2011

¶42

11.03.2011

¶43

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

Vijayalakshmi v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi v. the Deputy Superintendent of

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

G.P.Logesh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sebasthiammal Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Periyasamy Vs Superintendent of Police

J.Selvam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mariappan Vs Secretary to Government

Rani Vs the Commissioner of Police