Dismissed

A.Kalaiselvi v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC27 Oct 2015HCP/2288/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus petition filed by a mother to produce her minor daughters was closed after the Court affirmed the petitioner's agreement to reside with the father-in-law and mother-in-law for the children's welfare.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition was closed with the understanding that the petitioner has agreed to live with the respondents for the children's welfare.

A.Kalaiselvi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 27.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.2288 of 2015

¶7

A.Kalaiselvi
W/o.Late Arulmozhi ... Petitioner/Mother of the
detenue
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by the
Inspector of Police,
W6, All Women Police Station,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.
2.Palaniappan
3.P.Indirani
W/o.Palaniappan
4.Amutha
D/o.Palaniappan
5.Tamizharasi
D/o.Palaniappan
(Respondents 2 to 5 are impleaded as per
order of this Court dated 07.10.2015 made
in M.P.No.1/15 in H.C.P.No.2288/15) ... Respondents

¶8

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents to produce the petitioner's minor children viz., A.Gomathy, aged about 9 years, A.Kaviya, aged about 6 years and A.Sangeetha, aged about 4 years before this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents: Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai Additional Public Prosecutor [R1] Mr.R.Thiagarajan [R2 & R3]

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenues A.Gomathy, aged about 9 years, A.Kaviya, aged about 6 years and A.Sangeetha, aged about 4 years, aged 19 years, has filed this petition seeking a direction to first respondent to cause production of her daughters before this Court.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for first respondent and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶15

Petitioner married one Arulmozhi on 13.11.2005. Out of the wedlock, they had four female children. Petitioner's husband died in a road accident. Respondents 2 and 3 are the father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the petitioner. Petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and the minor children of the petitioner are present before this Court. We permitted the parties to discuss the issue in the presence of their respective counsel. After such discussion, it was represented that the petitioner agreed to live at the residence of respondents 2 and 3 for the welfare of her children.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid circumstance, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed .

¶17

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶18

1.The Inspector of Police,

¶19

W6, All Women Police Station, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶20

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104. +1 cc to Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Advocate, sr.5887 +1cc to Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate Sr.58235[24/11/2015]

¶21

H.C.P.No.2288 of 2015 ctk co kra 18.11.2015

¶22

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

A.Kalaiselvi v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kalaiselvi v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Raju Vs State by

Markrat Vs the Secretary to Government

Priya Vs the Secretary to Government

K.George Kingsley @ George Vs the Inspector of Police

Manoj @ Manojkumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Narthika Vs the State of Tamilnadu