Dismissed

T.Marudhayi, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC28 Feb 2017HCP(MD)/202/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition alleging her daughter Nagalakshmi was missing. When-produced before the court, the detenue stated she left voluntarily and is not in illegal custody. The court recorded the submission and closed the petition as nothing survives.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition closed as nothing survives for adjudication upon production of the detenue who denied illegal custody.

T.Marudhayi, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.02.2017

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶5

H.C.P.[MD].No.202 of 2017

T.Marudhayi

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police,

¶10

Madurai City, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai.

¶12

3.S.Saravakumar : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the first and second respondents to produce the body of the detenue, namely Nagalakshmi, aged about 20 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenue-Nagalakshmi, aged about 20 years, has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition, stating that the detenue was found missing from 03.02.2017 onwards and in this regard, she has made a complaint before the second respondent on 04.02.2017. However, no effective steps were taken to trace out the detenue so far. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

¶19

Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, the second respondent produced the detenue before this Court. On our https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry, she told us that she was not allowed to study by her mother and hence, she voluntarily left the house and stayed in her

¶20

¶21

relative's house. Further, the detenue has assertively stated that she is not in illegal custody of anybody. Now, she has also expressed her willingness to go along with the petitioner.

¶22

Recording the submission made by the detenue, the Habeas

¶23

Corpus Petition is closed as nothing survives for adjudication.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Commissioner of Police,

¶30

Madurai City,

¶31

Madurai.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶33

Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai.

¶34

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

¶35

SML

¶36

PSM/SKN/10.03.2017/2P/4C

¶37

Order made in H.C.P.[MD].No.202 of 2017 Dated: 28.02.2017

¶38

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

T.Marudhayi, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Marudhayi, v. the Commissioner 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

Kaveri Vs the Superintendent of Police

Anandavalli Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Saravanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Sivamurugan Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.J.Priya Vs Manjammal

Melvin Vs the Secretary to Govt.