In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the father sought the production of his son who allegedly eloped and married a woman. The Court found the son willing to live with his wife. Consequently, the Court refused to direct forcible custody of the son.
The Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed without passing any order for handing over custody of the detenu.
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: 05.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA H.C.P.(MD)No.272 of 2018
T.Arumugam
... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
PRAYER : Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person or body of the petitioner's son namely Esakkimuthu @ Ganesan (aged 20 years), son of the petitioner viz., T.Arumugam, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court wasmade by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.]
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Esakkimuthu @ Ganesan, who was born on 30.05.1997. According to the petitioner, his son / detenu was studying first year Polytechnic Course and he has eloped with the third respondent, on 28.01.2018. According to the petitioner, the third respondent is aged about 24 years, whereas the detenu is less than 21 years and as such, no marriage in the eye of law, can be solemnised. The petitioner in this regard has also given a complaint to the second respondent, based on which, only community service register receipt alone has been given and no F.I.R. has been registered and since his son yet to be traced, came forward to file this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
AKV
VB/SV/MMS/SAR2/28.03.2018/2P/4C
H.C.P.(MD).No.272 of 2018 05.03.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction for production of a minor who married against parental wishes under the Child Marriage Restraint Act should be issued in a Habeas Corpus Petition.
T.Arumugam
State represented by The Superintendent of Police
The Inspector of Police
Sharmila
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
R.HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
