Dismissed

Janibarani v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC21 Jun 2017HCP(MD)/901/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed for Habeas Corpus. The Court held that the petition, challenging the husband's detention due to marital disputes, was misconceived and abused the court process, directing the petitioner to seek remedies in civil or family courts.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as it was thoroughly misconceived and in abuse of process of the Court.

Janibarani Vs the Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

H.C.P(MD)No.901 of 2017

¶5

Janibarani ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.State represented by The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City.

¶9

3.Balakrishnan 4.Jeyarani

¶10

5.Arulprakash ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Sivasankar, son of Balakrishnan, aged 35 years before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan

¶13

Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1 & R.2

¶14

Mrs.Samundi Bose for detenu

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of Sivasankar, son of Balakrishnan, aged about 35 years, who is the husband of the petitioner.

¶19

The said Sivasankar is present in Court. It is submitted on his behalf that there is a marital dispute between the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and her husband, for which, the petitioner has left his home and is residing elsewhere.

¶20

¶21

Whether the conduct of the petitioner's husband is

¶22

justified or not, is not a matter to be adjudicated in a writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus.

¶23

This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and in abuse

¶24

of process of this Court. The remedy, if any, of the petitioner lies in initiation of appropriate proceedings in the civil Court/Family Court.

¶25

This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶27

/True copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai City.

¶32

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

¶33

+1cc to M/s.Chamundi Bose,Advocate,SR.No.61499

¶34

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.901 of 2017 21.06.2017

¶35

RSB

¶36

KK/KP/SAR4/27.06.2017/2P-5C

¶37

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

Janibarani v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janibarani 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

R. Nagappan Vs K. Senthilkumari

N.Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector

M.Karuppasamy Vs Mr.P.Karuppasamy, President

Tmt. Vasantha Vs the Principle Secretary to

T.Sermadas Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Ranjitham Vs the Superintendent of Police