In this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner sought production and liberty of his 21-year-old son. The detenu was produced and stated he left voluntarily due to family misunderstanding against the petitioner's claim of illegal custody. The Court held that as the detenu was major, it was his decision to make. The petition was closed.
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: 09.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
H.C.P.[MD].No.1568 of 2018
A.Bose : Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the 1st and 2nd respondents, directing them to produce in person or body of the petitioner's elder son Sevugamoorthi, son of Bose aged about 21 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.V.Neelakandan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
**O R D E R *************
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.]
The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person or body of the detenu namely Sevugamoorthi, aged about 21 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.
2.The petitioner is the father of the detenu and he has come https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition on the averments that the detenu Sevugamoorthi is his elder son and he finished his 8th standard and started doing construction work. On 25.09.2018,
2
the detenu informed him that he was going to Kerala for construction work. After going to Kerala, he has not contacted the petitioner. Though several attempts were made by the petitioner to contact the detenu over mobile-phone, there was no answer from the said mobile number. When the petitioner enquired with the friends of the detenu, he came to know that the detenu got married with one Pasupathi, D/o.Arumugam. Further, he came to know that the detenu is under the illegal custody of the said Pasupathi's mother and her son-in-law namely one Pavunraj, the third respondent herein. Therefore, on 07.10.2018, the petitioner along with his wife, went to the house of the said Arumugam and asked about the detenu. But, no proper answer was given. Hence, after lodging a complaint with the respondents 1 and 2 on 23.10.2018, he has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition for the aforesaid prayer.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)
To
Madurai District.
PM
TE/SKN/SAR-4 : 05/12/2018 : 2P/4C
ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1568 of 2018 09.11.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Habeas Corpus petition is maintainable when the detenu is a major voluntary leaving the home.
Whether this Court should order production and liberty of the detenu on the facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Bose
The Commissioner of Police
The Inspector of Police
Pavunraj
R.Subbiah
R.Tharani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
