Dismissed

Murugan v. the District Superintendent of

Madras HC5 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/213/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking the production of his 27-year-old daughter who had gone missing. The court noted she had voluntarily married on the date she was reported missing and lives happily with her spouse, declining her father's intervention.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition is dismissed; the detenue girl is not in illegal custody.

Murugan Vs the District Superintendent of — Madras HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:05.04.2011

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.213 of 2011

¶7

Murugan, S/o.Kumaravel ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶11

3.Balachandar 4.Rajeswari ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter Anandhi, D/o.Murugan, aged about 27 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr. R.Murugappan For Respondents :Mr.P.N.Pandithurai, 1 and 2 Addl.Public.Pleader. O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J)

¶14

The petitioner, who is the father of the detenue by name Anandhi, has filed this habeas corpus petition to trace his daughter Anandhi, aged about 27 years, a B.Sc.Degree holder, who was working in ICICI Bank at Thirumangalam branch and reported to be missing from 16.02.2011. According to the petitioner, when the marriage was arranged and fixed for their daughter on 23.02.2011, she had left home and missing from 16.02.2011. Since the complaint given to the respondent police was not seriously taken, the present petition has been filed.

¶15

2.On notice, the 2nd respondent police has produced the detenue, along with the 3rd respondent, today. When we interviewed the girl to know her mind, she stated that she has married the 3rd respondent on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16.02.2011 and since then she has been living with the 3rd respondent happily. We also interviewed the 3rd respondent, who is said to have

¶16

¶17

married the detenue girl. He admitted that the detenue girl is his wife having married her on 16.02.2011 and both of them are living happily. We also called the petitioner and appraised him of these facts. Since the detenue girl has left the house and married the 3rd respondent on her own, he is not prepared to accept her marriage and consequently he is not prepared to take her with him also. The detenue girl also in turn not interested in going with the petitioner/her father.

¶18

3.In view of the fact that the daughter of the petitioner/the detenue, being a major aged about 27 years, has gone out on her own and married the 3rd respondent, there is nothing further remains in the petition to be considered.

¶19

4.In the result, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed and the detenue girl is not in illegal custody of the 3rd respondent.

¶20

gb Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

To:

¶24

1.The District Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶25

2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Thirumangalam,

¶26

Madurai District.

¶27

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

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.R.Murugappan, Advocate Sr.No.12686.

Order in

HCP(MD)No.213/2011

Dated:05.04.2011

2P/5C RPB 05.05.2011

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

Murugan v. the District Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. the District Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Kulanthaithurachi Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Gnanaguru Vs the Superintendent of Police

J. Jayasingh Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

John Joseph Vs Superintendent of Police

K. Neenbar Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

A. Indira Vs the Superintendent of Police