A writ petition under Article 226 seeking Habeas Corpus to produce the petitioner's alleged wife was dismissed due to lack of documentary proof establishing a valid marriage, thereby negating the petitioner's locus standi.
The Habeas Corpus petition was dismissed for lack of locus standi due to absence of proof of marriage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
H.C.P(MD)No.573 of 2017
S.Chellapandi
: Petitioner
Vs.
2.The Inspector of Police, Saanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.Samikannu
4.Murugeswari : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus petition, directing respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the detenue/the petitioner's wife namely Durgadevi D/o. Samikkannu, aged about 22 years by saving her from the hands of 3rd and 4th respondents before this Hon'ble Court and hand over the detenue to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivalingam
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents 3 and 4 : Mr.J.Sivaram
O R D E R ***********
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Claiming that he has exchanged ring with the detenue and he is legally married to the detenue, the petitioner wanted the detenue to be produced before this Court, who is said to be in the custody of respondents 3 and 4.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other hand submitted that the detenue has married to another person and it is an arranged marriage.
2
3.Though the petitioner claims that the marriage has been performed, there is no document to establish that there is valid marriage between the petitioner and the detenue. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this Habeas Corpus Petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(C.O)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Saanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +One cc to Mr.R.Sivalingam, Advocate, SR.No.60395 Is/sj RL/5C/2P/KP/SAR1/20/6/2017 H.C.P(MD)No.573 of 2017 13.06.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain a Habeas Corpus petition given the lack of documentary evidence proving a valid marriage between him and the detenue.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Chellapandi
Superintendent of Police
Inspector of Police
Samikannu
Murugeswari
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
P.VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
