Dismissed

R.Paramasivam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2018HCP(MD)/233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner father sought release of his 25-year-old daughter allegedly forced into marriage. The court found the daughter was a major who voluntarily left with the third respondent to get married and held the petitioners had no right to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is directed not to interfere with the detenue's voluntary marriage plans.

R.Paramasivam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶4

H.C.P(MD)No.233 of 2018

¶5

R.Paramasivam ... Petitioner

¶6

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶7

3.J.Rajkumar

¶8

Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter namely, Anandha Sundaravalli, aged 25 years, D/o. Paramasivam, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.)

¶12

The petitioner is the father of the detenue, namely, Ananthi Sundaravalli, who is aged about 25 years. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition would submit that his daughter, the detenue has completed his master degree in Engineering Course in Coimbatore and at that time the third respondent has developed a love affair with his daughter. However, it was not accepted by her daughter and therefore, initially he started pressing her and thereafter started threatening her. The petitioner would further aver that on 29.12.2017, the third respondent came to his house and assaulted his wife and immediately he lodged a complaint on the file of Sivakasi Town Police Station and though the contents of the complaint prima facie show commission of cognizable offences, the second respondent did not register any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case and merely called for enquiry. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 05.02.2008, the fourth respondent, who is the

¶13

¶14

mother of the third respondent came to his house along with his relatives and forcibly taken her daughter for the purpose of marrying to her son/3^rd respondent without her consent. The petitioner, apprehending that his daughter/detenue is held by them without her consent and marriage is also going to perform without her will and consent, came forward to file this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the materials placed before this Court and would submit that though the detenue is a major, she cannot be compelled to marry somebody against her wish and will and the respondents 3 and 4 with the connivance of police officials are compelling her daughter to marry the third respondent and being the father of the detenue, it is his bounden duty to protect her interest and welfare. Hence, prays for appropriate orders.

¶16

3.Per contra, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the detenue has submitted a petition, which was taken on file in C.S.R. No.48 of 2018 by the second respondent, wherein, she has stated that after completing M.E., she is with her parents and about six years prior, while she was doing post graduation she developed love affair and it was informed to her parents and she was warned and castigated and despite the fact that the mother of the third respondent came there and requested the parents to give her in marriage to the third respondent, it was refused and also seeking other alliances and therefore, prayed for action.

¶17

4.He further submitted that the detenue as well as respondents 3 and 4 and others were summoned and having found that the detenue is a major and voluntarily gone with her lover, namely, the third respondent, no action has been taken. He also produced the marriage invitation card as to the solemnization of marriage between the third respondent and the detenue to be held on 25.12.2018.

¶18

5.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶19

6.Admittedly, the detenue is a major and the materials produced before this Court prima facie would indicate that on her own volition she went with the third respondent and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the detenue respondent is going to marry the third respondent on 25.02.2018. The detenue being a major, she is entitled to take her own decision as to the marriage https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and therefore, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the same.

¶20

¶21

7.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶27

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

RL/4C/3P/KK/SAR4/8/3/2018

¶31

H.C.P(MD)No.233 of 2018

¶32

23.02.2018

¶33

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

R.Paramasivam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Paramasivam v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Brinso Raymond, S/O.Julius, Vs the District Collector

B.Ramkumar Adityan, Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Palanikumar, Vs the State , Rep.by the

Muthuraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pommi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Dhanushkodiyin Purviga Vs the District Collector