Dismissed

Sam Devadurai v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Aug 2014HCP/2050/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition to produce his wife, alleging illegal custody by respondents. Upon production, the wife stated she left due to ill-treatment, lives independently, works elsewhere, and seeks to dissolve the marriage. Petitioner's prayer was closed without further order.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition is closed without further order.

Sam Devadurai Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶7

HCP.No.2050/2014
Sam Devadurai ..Petitioner
Versus
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Pallapatty Police Station,
Salem City,
Salem District.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City,
Salem.
3. Baluchamy
4. Y.Elisi Rani .. Respondents
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing
the respondents 1 to 4 herein to produce the body or person of the
petitioner's wife by name “Mettilda'' aged about 29 years and set her
at liberty and restore her to the petitioner's custody.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Maharaja,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R4 : Mr.V.N.Mohanraj
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN J.,]

¶9

The petition has been filed by the husband to produce his wife/the detenue “Mettilda'' aged about 29 years said to be in the illegal custody of the respondents 3 and 4.

¶10

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

¶11

Today, the detenue is produced before this Court by the respondent police. The petitioner is also present before this Court. The 4^th respondent is represented by a Counsel.

¶12

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the detenue has left the matrimonial home and found in the company of the 4^th respondent at Coimbatore. But the detenue would deny the said allegation.

¶13

On enquiry, the detenue would state that now she is 34 years old and got married to the petitioner and it is an arranged marriage in the year 2007. Thereafter, because of his torture and ill-treatment, she left the matrimonial home and since then, she has been living independently. It has been also communicated to the petitioner duly by her parents. At present she is working in a hospital in Bangalore and she wants to continue there. Even in the presence of her husband/the petitioner, she would state that she would not like to live with him. She would further add that she is taking steps to dissolve the marriage that has taken place between her and the petitioner.

¶14

In view of the categorical statement of the detenue that
she would like to live independently and not to be with the
petitioner, nothing further remains in this petition. Hence, the
Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Pallapatty Police Station,
Salem City,
Salem District.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City,
Salem.

¶15

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

¶16

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶17

+1 cc to Mr.R.Balakrishnan Advocate sr.37870

¶18

+1 cc to Mr.V.N.Mohanraj Advocate sr.38040

¶19

HCP.No.2050/2014

¶20

aa01/09/2014

¶21

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

Sam Devadurai v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sam Devadurai 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

Sumathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Malliga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Padmavathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arumugam Vs the Superintendent of Police

D.Ravi Vs the State Rep by

R.Dinesh Kumar Vs the City Police Commissioner