Dismissed

T. Rajakumari v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC9 Oct 2018HCP(MD)/1408/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial custody dispute, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Habeas Corpus to produce her minor daughter and hand over custody. The bench dismissed the petition, declined to pass any order due to the familial nature of the dispute and absence of proven illegal custody, and noted the father's willingness to allow visitation.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.1408 of 2018

T.Rajakumari

... Petitioner

-vs-

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

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 3.Thangaraj 4.Dharmaraj 5.Anandavalli

¶13

6.Bakiam

¶14

7.Ponnammal ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents herein to produce the person or body of the detenue, Minor T.Anushka Sri, aged about 5 1/2 years, daughter of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court and hand over the custody of the petitioner.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajeswaran For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking production of her minor daughter and to hand over the custody to her.

¶18

2.This is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for the child. Therefore, we are not inclined to pass any order. Further, there is no illegal custody.

¶19

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

¶20

3.In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶21

¶22

However, the petitioner is at liberty to visit the child as and when required, for which the third respondent has no objection.

¶23

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Protocol) /True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶28

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

¶29

+1cc to Mr.K.RAJESHWARAN, Advocate, SR.No. 89810

¶30

H.C.P.(MD) No.1408 of 2018 09.10.2018

¶31

¶32

KK/SV/SAR-1/01.11.2018/2P-5C

¶33

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

T. Rajakumari v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T. Rajakumari v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shanthi, Vs the Principal Secretary to

K.Parameshwari Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Nandini Vs Union of India Rep by Its

S.Senthil Kumar, Vs the Principal District Judge

E.Samtitus Mani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Umasankari Vs the Inspector General of