Disposed

M. Paneerselvam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/236/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus to locate his daughter allegedly abducted by the third respondent for marriage. The court found the daughter was forcibly married against her will and prefers the third respondent. The detenue is now home. All parties undertook to legally dissolve the forced marriage to allow the intended union.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of; parties undertake to arrange legal dissolution of the marriage.

M. Paneerselvam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶4

H.C.P(MD)No.236 of 2011

M.Paneerselvam

.. Petitioner

vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District,

¶9

Sivagangai.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, K1, North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.M.Sivaraman .. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the first and second respondents to produce the body of the detenue P.Mathana, wife of Kalithasan (Age 19 years) and set her at liberty.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.S.Kameswaran

¶14

For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai

¶15

Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶16

For 3^rd respondent : Mr.D.Muruganantham

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner is the father of the detenue. He filed this Habeas Corpus Petition to trace out his daughter, P.Mathana, aged about 19 years doing B.A. English Literature Second Year in Arumugam Pillai Seethaiammal College at Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District. He performed her marriage on 23.2.2011 with one Kalithasan, his wife's brother at Kalanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. Marriage was registered at the Registrar's Office at Karaikudi on 7.3.2011 and they were living happily at Karikudi. While so on 11.3.2011, his daughter went to College but had not returned home. His son-in-law was not aware of her whereabouts. Search made in relative's house by all was in vain, but, it was reliably learnt that on 11.3.2011, the third respondent had forcibly abducted his daughter with the help of his friends. Therefore, a complaint was given by the son-in-law/husband of the detenue to the second respondent police on 12.3.2011. Since no action was taken by the respondent police, the above Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.

¶20

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

¶21

Today, the detenue appeared through the counsel before this

¶22

¶23

Court. The third respondent is also represented by a counsel and the third respondent along with his mother are also present before this Court. The petitioner and his wife/the parents of the detenue are present before this Court. The husband of the detenue, Mr.Kalithasan, is also present before this Court.

¶24

We held discussions with the entire family members of both the families viz., the petitioner, the detenue and the third respondent and the son-in-law and all others in the presence of the respective counsel in the Chambers.

¶25

We could see that the detenue P.Mathana, aged about 19 years though had a registered marriage with her own maternal uncle, arranged by her parents, she is not interested in the marriage as the marriage was solemnised against her wish and desire. The reason being that she was in love with the third respondent viz., M.Sivaraman and as the marriage was forcibly conducted by her parents with haste and without asking her consent, she does not want to live with her husband.

¶26

More over, she adds that since 11.3.2011, the day she left the matrimonial home, she has been living with her friends at Trichy without disclosing her whereabouts to any one. She is very firm and particular that she would like to marry only the third respondent and continue her life with him and not to live with her uncle, Kalithasan to whom she was married to on 23.2.2011. It is stated by the detenue that the marriage is not consummated. It has been admitted by her husband also.

¶27

The parents of the detenue were briefed of the whole situation by us. They agreed that if the detenue does not want to live with her husband, they themselves would take steps to dissolve the marriage legally and thereafter, get her married to the third respodnent.

¶28

The third respondent was called along with his mother and both were enquired by us. He also reiterated the fact that he was in love with the detenue but because of forcible marriage conducted against her wish, he has lost touch with her. However, he adds that he would like to marry her after the dissolution of the marriage of the detenue. His mother is also prepared to have the marriage conducted but, only after the dissolution of the marriage of the detenue with Kalithasan, her maternal uncle.

¶29

We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The detenue is now back home with the petitioner/her father. There is no illegal custody of any one muchless the third respondent. Therefore, nothing further remains to be considered in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶30

The petitioner and his wife/the parents of the detenue undertake that they would make arrangements for dissolution of the marriage of the detenue, legally and their statement is recorded. The husband of the detenue, who is present today, agrees for this. His statement is recorded.

¶31

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

¶32

The statement of the third respondent that in the event of the detenue coming forward to marry him after the dissolution of the

¶33

¶34

marriage, he would agree for the same, is also recorded.

¶35

The statement of the third respondent's mother's that in such an event she would also agree her son's wedding with the detenue, and she would do the needful is also recorded.

¶36

The parties undertake that they would adhere strictly to their

¶37

statements made before this Court and comply with the same in the interest of both the families. Most particularly, we impressed upon every one of them the interest of the detenue. The detenue is also advised to be careful in future as it is her life and advised her to pursue her studies so that her future depends on her decision.

¶38

The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶44

K1, North Police Station, Karaikudi,

¶45

Sivagangai District.

¶46

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶47

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

+1 CC TO MR. S. KAMESWARAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 14063

¶49

H.C.P.(MD)No.236 of 2011 12.04.2011 asvm PAM 24.05.2011/5C/3P

¶50

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

M. Paneerselvam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Paneerselvam v. the Superintendent 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

Jeyanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Arokia Selvi Vs Incharge Commissioner of

A.Rajammal Vs the Secretary