Allowed

Inbarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Aug 2014HCP/1802/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition dismissing appellant's objection that detainee's father needed to appear. Court noted the woman was a major inter-castely married major man and feared threats from father's family. Citing SC directions on inter-caste violence, ordered police protection and closed petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; police to protect the petitioner and detenue as directed by the Supreme Court for their safe and happy living post-marriage.

Inbarajan Vs the Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.08.2014

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH H.C.P.No.1802 of 2014

¶4

K.Enbarajan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.Inspector of Police,
B-1, Thiruvallur Town Police Station,
Thiruvellore.
2.K.G.Rajendra Babu
3.Kathir
4.Selvakumar ...Respondents

¶5

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the first respondent to produce the body of the petitioner's wife Sri Illakya, aged about 23 years, the victim girl, before this Court and restore her to the petitioner's custody.

¶6

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Inbarajan claiming to be the husband of the detenue. It is alleged by the petitioner that he got married to the detenue on 04.12.2013. On 30.07.2014, the detenue appeared before this Court and the petitioner was also present. It was represented by the detenue that she is a M.Sc.

¶7

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

¶8

graduate and fell in love with the petitioner and they got married. Further, she stated that since, they belong to different communities, there is objection by her parents.

¶9

2.On 30.07.2014, before this Court, respondents 2 to 4 who were represented by counsel submitted that the detenue's father is admitted in the hospital and he would like to see the detenue. Since the said case was taken out of turn, the father of the detenue could not be present on that day. Therefore, we have posted the case today (11.08.2014).

¶10

3.Today, the detenue and the petitioner are present. But, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 that since, the father of the detenue is still in hospital and his condition is serious, he sought for further time for the appearance of the father of the detenue before this Court or the detenue may be directed to see her father in the hospital.

¶11

4.We are not inclined to grant time because, the detenue being a major girl, fell in love with the petitioner, married him on her own wish and has been living with him from 04.12.2013 and she also fears threat to her life by her father and his people.

¶12

5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P reported in 2006 Cr.L.J 3312, while dealing with a case of harassment by the parents of the boy and girl, who had entered into inter-caste marriage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have issued directions to the Administration/Police Authorities throughout the country in the following terms:-

¶13

“This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry who so ever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harass or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to

¶14

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

¶15

task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.”

¶16

6.In the light of this categorical decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with which we are bound to follow, we find that the detenue having come back to the petitioner nothing survives in this Habeas Corpus Petition and that the police should give protection to them as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for their happy living.

¶17

7.With the above observation, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar.
jbm
To
1.Inspector of Police,
B-1, Thiruvallur Town Police Station,
Thiruvellore.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1802 of 2014
SKV [CO]
PSI 02/09/2014

¶19

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

Inbarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inbarajan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.v.Venkatraman Vs Ananda Valli

Mallika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Victoria Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Smt.Rathna Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ibrahim Vs the Inspector of Police