Allowed

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Aug 2014HCP/1894/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the father sought visitation rights for his minor son detained with maternal grandparents following a criminal case regarding the wife's suicide. The court permitted weekly supervised visits starting from 17.08.2014 until the trial concludes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to visit son every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. from 17.08.2014; camps directed to grant entry; arrangement continues until trial decision.

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran Vs the Superintendent… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 11.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

HCP.No.1894/2014

¶6

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran ...Petitioner Versus 1. The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶7

The Inspector of Police
Kalasappakkam Police Station
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. V.Nagalingadevar
4. Thanikodi ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer:Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 2^nd respondent to produce the detenu namely minor A.Varshan, S/o.T.Arindran @ Baskaran, aged about 3 ½ years residing at 122, 3^rd street, Srilankan Refugees Camp, Thenpallipattu Village, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District from the illegal custody of the respondents 3 and 4 before this Court and hand over his custody to the petitioner herein.

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN J.,]

¶12

The above petition has been filed by the petitioner/father of the detenue, minor child Varshan, aged about 3 1/2 years, who is said to be in the illegal custody of the respondents 3 and 4/maternal grandparents of the child, to cause production of his minor son before this Court and to hand over his custody to him.

¶13

2.The case of the petitioner is that he got married to one Dharshinipriya, the daughter of the 3^rd respondent herein, on 22.11.2009 and out of the said wedlock, the detenu Varshan was born on 01.09.2010. While so, on 03.04.2014, during midnight, the wife of the petitioner consumed poison and committed suicide. Thereafter, a complaint was given by the 3^rd respondent on the ill-advice of the 4^th respondent and a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.130/2014 for the alleged offence u/s.174 Cr.P.C., @ 306 IPC @ 304-B IPC on 04.04.2014. It is the further case of the petitioner that his minor son/detenu herein was in the custody of the respondents 3 and 4 since the date of the death of his wife, i.e., from 03.04.2014. Pursuant to the bail granted to the petitioner and his mother in the said case in Cr.No.130/2014, the petitioner approached the respondents 3 and 4 to have the custody of his child. But, the respondents 3 and 4 refuted to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner. The petitioner was also not permitted to see his own child. The complaint given to the respondent police also did not evoke any response. Hence, the above petition has been filed by the petitioner for the aforesaid prayer.

¶14

3.Today, the respondents 3 and 4 are present before this Court along with the detenue Varshan and they are represented by a counsel. The petitioner is also present before us along with his sister.

¶15

4.Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that since a criminal case is registered as against the petitioner towards the death of the daughter of the 3^rd respondent/wife of the petitioner herein, the respondents 3 and 4 are not interested in the petitioner seeing the minor child.

¶16

5.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being the father of the child, is only facing criminal charges and he is yet to be convicted by the Trial Court. Therefore, till a final decision is taken by the Court of law, the petitioner's rights to see his own child cannot be denied by the respondents 3 and 4, who are the maternal grandparents of the child. The presence of the investigating officer before this Court today is recorded.

¶17

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

¶18

6.We have heard the rival submissions carefully. We have also gone through the documents made available on record.

¶19

7.Admittedly, a case has been registered as against the petitioner in Cr.No.130/2014 for the offence u/s. 174 Cr.P.C., @ 306 IPC @ 304-B IPC and he is facing criminal charges. Respondents 3 and 4 who are the maternal grandparents of the child, are having the custody of the child. Presently, the petitioner is in the Thenppallipattu Srilankan Refugees Camp at Tiruvannamalai, along with his sister and the respondents 3 and 4 are in the Kottappattu Srilankan Refugees Camp at Tiruchirappalli. Since the petitioner being the father of the detenu/minor child Varshan, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be denied of visiting his own child, who is said to be in the custody of his maternal grandparents.

¶20

8.In the light of the above, we pass the following order with the consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4:

¶21

[a]The petitioner/father of the detenu Varshan aged about 4 years, is permitted to visit his son/detenu, on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. until further orders and as per the procedure contemplated under the Act. This arrangement commences from 17.08.2014 onwards.

¶22

[b]The Officer In-charge of the Thenppallipattu Srilankan Refugees Camp at Tiruvannamalai, is directed to pass necessary orders granting permission to the petitioner to leave the Camp on every Sunday to visit his son who is housed at the Tiruchirappalli camp.

¶23

[c]The Officer in-charge of the Kottappattu Srilankan Refugees Camp at Tiruchirappalli, where the respondents 3 and 4 and the detenu are housed, is directed to permit the petitioner to visit his son Varshan/detenu herein, on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. until further orders.

¶24

[d]It is made clear that the petitioner shall not cause any physical or mental disturbance or harassment to the detenu during his visit. The petitioner should not, on any account, take the detenu out of the Refugees Camp at Tiruchirappalli.

¶25

[e]The respondents 3 and 4 shall also be with the detenu/child when the petitioner visits the detenu/child, if they desire so.

¶26

[f]There should not be any hindrance or disturbance to the petitioner and he should have free access to the detenu/his son.

¶27

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

¶28

[g]In the mean time, if the petitioner is desirous of continuing the custody of the detenu/his child, it is open to him to file appropriate petition before the appropriate Court.

¶29

[h]It is further made clear that the above arrangement shall continue until the judgment of the criminal case is rendered by the Trial Court.

¶30

9.The Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶31

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Records)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Inspector of Police
Kalasappakkam Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Officer - in - charge,
Thenppallipattu Srilankan Refugees Camp,
Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Officer - in - charge,
Kottapattu Srilankan Refugees Camp,
Tirchirapalli.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 CC to Mr.S.Kumaradevan, Advocate SR.No. 36253
1 CC to M/s, Samanta & Ston, Advocate SR.No.36220
GJ (CO)
PSI (12.08.2014)

¶32

HCP.No.1894/2014

¶33

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

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Arindaran @ Baskaran 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

N.v.Venkatraman Vs Ananda Valli

Mallika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Victoria Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.

Inbarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Smt.Rathna Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ibrahim Vs the Inspector of Police