Dismissed

S.Ananda Prakash v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC11 Mar 2015HCP/556/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 directing police to produce his wife. When produced, the wife denied the marriage by the petitioner and expressed willingness to live with her parents. The court consequently closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition was closed after the detenue-wife was produced and denied the marriage.

S.Ananda Prakash Vs the State Rep by Its — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 11.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN and The Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

H.C.P. No.556 of 2015

¶6

S.Ananda Prakash ... Petitioner/Husband of

¶7

detenu

¶8

vs. 1. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, W-15, All Women Police Station, Kasimedu, Rayapuram, Chennai-13. 2. C.Manirasu ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the first respondent police to produce the body of the detenu Mrs.M.Vinodha, wife of Mr.Ananda Prakash, aged about 24 years, before this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.M.Baskaran For respondent-1 : Mr.R.PrathapKumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

For respondent-2 : Mr.G.Sankaran

¶12

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitionerhusband seeking to direct the 1^st respondent-Police to produce the detenue-wife, by name M.Vinodha, aged about 24 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶13

When the matter was taken up today, the so-called detenue by name, M.Vinodha, aged about 24 years, along with her parents, was produced before the Court, by the 1^st respondent-Police. The petitioner, as well as his counsel, were also present before the Court. The so-called detenue, when personally enquired by us, denied

¶14

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

¶15

the voluntary nature of the marriage between the petitioner and herself and she has also expressed her willingness to continue to live with her parents, who are residing at Thanjavur.

¶16

In view of the above categorical statement made by the socalled detenue, no further orders are necessary, except permitting the detenue to go along with her parents. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. However, it goes without saying that the petitioner-husband may work out his remedy, if any, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law.

¶17

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gs.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
W-15, All Women Police Station,
Kasimedu, Rayapuram, Chennai-13..
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate, S.R.No.13782
HCP No.556 of 2015
GR(CO)
CA(19/03/2015)

¶18

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

S.Ananda Prakash v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ananda Prakash v. the State Rep by Its

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

Tmt.R.Saranya Vs State of Tamil Nadu

G.Ganesan Vs the State Rep by

Usha Vs the Secretary to the

K.Karthik Vs the Deputy Superitendent of

Santha Vs the Secretary to Government

C.Venatesh Vs the State of Tamil Nadu