Disposed

K. Neenbar v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/257/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, maternal grandfather of two missing minor girls, filed a habeas corpus petition for their production. On hearing, it was brought to the Court's notice that the missing girls were located and produced to the petitioner. The Court recorded an admission by the grandfather and closed the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed as the minor children were produced to the petitioner and the Court recorded the petitioner's admission to keep them.

K. Neenbar Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2011)

¶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

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶7

Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.257 of 2011

K.Neenbar

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Keeranur, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶12

2.N.Sangilidurai ..Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the 1st respondent to produce the corpus or body of the petitioner's minor grand children namely (1)Madhumathi (aged 6 years) and Devadharshini (aged 4 years) before this Court and to pass such further or other orders.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.C.B.Senthilkumar For Respondent-1 :Mr.P.N.Pandithurai, Addl.Public.Pleader.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner, who is the maternal grandfather of the allegedly missing two minor children, has filed this petition for tracing his two minor grand daughters born through his daughter.

¶18

2.The daughter of the petitioner is said to have expired on 25.09.2008 and his son -in-law is also said to have expired on 02.06.2010. Since the date of death of his daughter, the two minor children were with their maternal grandfather, the petitioner herein. However, on 20.03.2010, the 2nd respondent, along with his men, came to the petitioner's house and by force taken away the two minor children from the hands of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present habeas corpus petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶19

3.Today, when the petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1st respondent police have secured the two minor children and handed over them to the petitioner, the grandfather and now the minor children are with the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

¶21

4.We interviewed the petitioner, the grandfather, who is present in the court with his grand children, and he admitted that, now, the two grand daughters are with him and he would continue to keep them with him. The said statement is recorded.

¶22

5.In view of the above, the petition is closed as no further order needs to be passed.

¶23

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar[CO]

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Keeranur, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶29

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶30

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

Order in HCP(MD)No.257/2011

¶32

Dated:05.04.2011

¶33

2P/3C RPB 08.04.2011

¶34

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

K. Neenbar v. the Sub-Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Neenbar v. the Sub-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

R.Kulanthaithurachi Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Gnanaguru Vs the Superintendent of Police

J. Jayasingh Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the District Superintendent of

John Joseph Vs Superintendent of Police

A. Indira Vs the Superintendent of Police