Allowed

K.Karuppan v. State Rep B Y

Madras HC1 Apr 2019HCP/500/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition filed by a husband seeking release of his wife detained by her relatives, the Court observed that the detenue was a major who took a conscious decision to remain with her parents. Consequently, the petitioner’s petition was disposed of without specific release orders, but the police were directed to proceed further with the petitioner's complaint regarding missing as

What did the court decide?

Detenue set at liberty with parents’ custody; Police directed to proceed further with complaint dated 01.03.2019 regarding missing jewels and cash.

K.Karuppan Vs State Rep B Y — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :01.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.No.500 of 2019

¶7

K.Karuppan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State, rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police
Manalurpettai Police Station
Villupuram District.
2.Santhosh
3.Siva
4.Rajendran
5.Dhanam .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1^st respondent to produce the body of the detenue namely Umamaheswari, W/o.K.Karuppan, aged about 28 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr. S.Kumaresan

¶10

For Respondents.. Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj [R1] Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner claims to be the husband of the detenue namely Umamaheswari, aged about 28 years and according to him,

¶13

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

¶14

he is the permanent resident of Kuladeepamangalam Village of Thirukoilur Taluk, and he got married to the detenue six years back, who also belongs to the same village, and for the past three years, he has been staying with her wife in Chennai, and since her wife is in her family way, she was taken back to the native place and her custody was entrusted to his mother.

¶15

It is the specific case of the petitioner that during his stay at Chennai, it appears the second respondent with the aid of third respondent had taken away 35 sovereigns of gold jewels and a cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from his house and they have also kidnapped his wife, and on coming to know, he lodged a complaint on 01.03.2019, on the file of the first respondent and since no worthwhile action is taken by the respondent-police so far, and exhibiting concern and anxiety about the whereabouts of his wife, who is in family way, came forward to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

This Habeas Corpus Petition was entertained and notices were ordered to the respondents. The detenue was produced before this Court on 11.03.2019, and on that day, she was unable to take a decision and expressed her unwillingness to accompany her parents nor her husband. Hence, this Court has directed that the detenue should be housed in Abhayam Nilayam [Kalaiselvi Karunalaya], No.100, Vaigai Square, Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Villupuram District and the matter was adjourned to today. Accordingly, the matter is listed today and the detenue, who is present before this Court, expressed her willingness to go to her parental home and she would further add that she gave a sum of Rs.38,000/- as well as 5 sovereigns of gold jewels to the second respondent. The detenue would further add that her husband/petitioner used to ill-treat her frequently under the guise of alcohol and that, she may require recouping time to recover from it and take a decision, and for the present, she wants to remain with her parents. The father of the detenue is also present today and he undertakes to take care and custody of her daughter.

¶17

In the light of the fact that the detenue is a major and she took a conscious decision to remain in the custody of her parents, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in this petition, that the detenue should be set at liberty, and to enable her to take a call with regard to her future career. But however, taking into consideration, the allegations put forward by the petitioner as regards missing of jewels and cash, and also the statement of the detenue before this Court as to the alleged role played by the second respondent, this Court directs the first respondent to proceed further with the complaint dated 01.03.2019 lodged by the petitioner, and take further action in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Sub Inspector of Police
Manalurpettai Police Station
Villupuram District.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Kumaresan, Advocate, SR.No.31272/19
H.C.P.No.500 of 2019
Kak(28/05/2019)

¶23

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

K.Karuppan v. State Rep B Y

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Karuppan v. State Rep B Y

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthan @ Muthusamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

N.Akbhar Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Venkatesan Vs Superintendent of Police

Vivekanandhan Vs the State Rep by Its

Raj Kiran Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Prison

Kalaimani Vs State Rep by