Dismissed

M.Saravanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC27 Feb 2017HCP(MD)/261/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for Habeas Corpus filed by a husband seeking release of his wife who went missing after eloping with a previous love interest, the court produced the detenue. Finding she was a major willing adult who voluntarily left, the court granted liberty to the detenue and closed the petition. Relief is provision for the petitioner to approach police for further action.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Saravanan Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.02.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶8

H.C.P.[MD].No.261 of 2017

M.Saravanan

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶13

Karur District,

¶14

Karur.

¶15

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶16

Pasupathypalayam Police Station, Karur. : Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue who is the wife of the petitioner namely Dhanalakshmi, wife of Saravanan, aged about 25 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

**O R D E R *************

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner, who is the husband of the detenueDhanalakshmi, wife of Saravanan, aged about 25 years, has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition, stating that the detenue was found missing from 29.01.2017 onwards and in this regard, he has made a complaint before the second respondent on 30.01.2017. However, no effective steps were taken to trace out the detenue so far. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

¶23

Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, the second respondent produced the detenue before this Court. On our enquiry, she had stated that prior to marriage with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner, she was in love with one Krishnan. However, she was compelled by her parents to marry the petitioner. Having been left

¶24

¶25

with no other alternative, she married the petitioner. Now, on her own accord, she went along with the said Krishnan and married him. She has assertively stated that there is no illegal detention.

¶26

Since the detenue is a major, aged about 23 years, she is set at liberty.

¶27

The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed accordingly. However, the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a complaint to the respondent police to take further action in this regard. Sd/Assistant Registrar(C) /True copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathypalayam Police Station, Karur.

¶32

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

¶33

+1 cc to M/s.A.Chandrakumar, Advocate in SR.No. 10816

¶34

SML

¶35

CSL/BS/10.03.2017 : 2P/5C

¶36

Order made in H.C.P.[MD].No.261 of 2017 Dated: 27.02.2017

¶37

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

M.Saravanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Saravanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

Kaveri Vs the Superintendent of Police

Anandavalli Vs the Superintendent of Police

Lakshmi Vs the Secretary to the Govt.