Disposed

Kaveri v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC27 Feb 2017HCP(MD)/201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner sought production and liberty for her husband and two daughters. The court noted that the daughters were produced before the court during hearing and stated they were with their grandmother, not in illegal custody. Consequently, the petition was closed as there was no illegality to adjudicate.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed as the detenus are not in illegal custody; no writ is issued.

Kaveri Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:27.02.2017

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU H.C.P.[MD].No.201 of 2017

¶5

Kaveri : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.State, Represented by Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Nachiyarkovil Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur.

¶9

3.Amutha : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Mani, S/o.Manickam, aged 49 years, petitioner's daughters, namely, Mathana Priya, D/o.Mani, aged 20 years, Shanmuga Priya, D/o.Mani, aged 19 years, before this Court and set them at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Yusuf For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J .]

¶16

The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenus, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Mani, S/o.Manickam, aged about 49 years, petitioner's daughters, namely, Mathana Priya, D/o.Mani, aged about 20 years, Shanmuga Priya, D/o.Mani, aged about 19 years, before this Court and set them at liberty.

¶17

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

¶18

According to the petitioner, the marriage between the

¶19

¶20

petitioner and the first detenu was solemnized on 14.03.1991. Due to the wedlock, they were blessed with two children. While so, in the year 2012, her husband took her two daughters to Kumbakonam and admitted them in a school attached with hostel and went to abroad. In the year 2014, the petitioner went to the said hostel to see her daughters, but, she could not find them. In this regard, the petitioner made a complaint before the second respondent. Since there were no effective steps taken by the second respondent police to trace out the detenus, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶21

Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for consideration, the second respondent police produced the detenus, namely, Mathana Priya, D/o.Mani, aged about 20 years, Shanmuga Priya, D/o.Mani, aged about 19 years. On enquiry, they have stated that right from the childhood, they have been residing along with her grandmother. They have further stated that they are not in illegal custody.

¶22

In view of the above, since the detenus are not in illegal custody, in our considered view, nothing survives for adjudication in the Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Writs)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Nachiyarkovil Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur.

¶29

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

¶31

PSM/RSK/10.03.2017/2P/4C

¶32

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.[MD].No.201 of 2017 27.02.2017

¶33

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

Kaveri v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaveri 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

M/S.Icici Lombard General Vs K.Panchavarnam

A.E.Rasa Annamalai Vs M.Meenakshi

S.Dhanalakshmi Vs the District Collector

Anandavalli Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Saravanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Lakshmi Vs the Secretary to the Govt.