Dismissed

G. Nagamani v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC8 Nov 2018HCP(MD)/1271/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking release of her children from police custody. Court, noting children were in custody of petitioner's parents but now with her father due to her marriage to another, dismissed the petition as it did not constitute illegal custody. Petitioner directed to seek custody rights through appropriate legal forum.

What the court decided

AI extract

G. Nagamani Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2018

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI H.C.P.[MD].No.1271 of 2018

¶4

G.Nagamani : Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶7

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District. : Respondents

¶8

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 person or body of the detenu namely Dimple Roopa, D/o.Gopinath, aged about 11 years, Santhosh, aged about 6 years, children of the petitioner from the illegal custody of the second respondent before this Court and set them at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar

¶10

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.B.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

For Detenu : Mr.B.Senthil Kumar

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu namely Dimple Roopa, D/o.Gopinath, aged about 11 years, Santhosh, aged about 6 years, children of the petitioner from the illegal custody of the second respondent before this Court and set them at liberty.

¶15

2.The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. Now, the children are with the custody of the parents of the petitioner and their custody was taken from the petitioner forcibly. Hence, she has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition with the aforesaid prayer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition was taken up for consideration, the father of the petitioner namely Ramasamy appeared before us and submitted that his daughter married another person and therefore, the children are under their custody.

¶18

The detenu were produced before this Court. When we enquired the detenu, on enquiry, they have stated that their mother married one Pandiyarajan and he misbehaved with them. They expressed their unwillingness to go along with the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the custody of the children is only with the father and mother of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be considered as illegal custody and hence, the question of entertaining this Habeas Corpus Petition, does not arise in this matter.

¶20

Therefore, without going into the other averments, we dismiss this Habeas Corpus Petition. If the petitioner is having any grievance, she has to work out her remedy for the custody of the children, by initiating proper legal proceedings before the appropriate forum.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

¶26

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶27

The Inspector of Police,

¶28

All Women Police Station, Manapparai,

¶29

Trichy District.

¶30

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶31

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶32

Madurai.

¶33

¶34

KM/SV/SAR2/12.12.2018/2P/4C

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)NO.1271 of 2018 08.11.2018

G. Nagamani v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G. Nagamani v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Karthick Vs the Commissioner of Police

M.Vishalatchi Vs the Director of Town and

Sonaimuthu Vs the Principal Secretary to