The petitioner sought habeas corpus for his wife detained by parents. Upon examining the detenue, who was a major, the Court found she chose to return to her parents. The petition was dismissed without setting the wife at liberty.
The habeas corpus petition is dismissed and the detenue is set at liberty to join her parents.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.No.520/2019
J.Ebineser .. Petitioner
vs.
State rep.by
1.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Velipalayam Police Station
Nagapattinam 611 001. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the 2nd respondent to to produce the petitioner's wife namely Noorul Rizwana, aged about 21 years daughter of Nasir Usain, before this Court, illegally detained by her parents and to set her at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Aranganathan
For RR 1 & 2 .. Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, APP
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J)
The petitioner is a resident of Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli District and
according to him, he was studying B.E. [Mechanical Engineering] 4th Year in http://www.judis.nic.in Thakoor Engineering College at Vandaloor and he went to Nagapattinam to
2
attend a cultural event conducted by EGS Pillai Engineering College and during that occasion, he developed acquaintance with the detenue Noorul Rizwana, who professes Islamic faith and subsequently, developed a love affair. It is further averred that though the parents of the detenue were aware of the said fact, they have taken steps to marry her against her wishes and therefore, the detenue asked the petitioner to come and take her away and accordingly, the detenue came out of her parental home on her own volition and the petitioner had taken her to his native place and subsequently, got married at Pandarakulam Church, at Thalaiyuthu and started living as husband and wife. Thereafter, some of of the members of the Jamath of the detenue, opposed the petitioner and asked the petitioner to convert as Muslim and for that also, the petitioner agreed and under that pretext, the detenue was taken away on 29.11.2018 and thereafter, she did not return and apprehending that she is kept under the illegal detention and confinement against her wishes at the
hands of her parents and fearing for her life and safety, the petitioner came forward to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2 When the matter is listed today, the detenue Noorul Rizwana and her mother are present. The detenue is also enquired by this Court. She would state that since the petitioner threatened that he would commit suicide, she was forced to go and after realisation, she, on her own volition, went back
3
to her parental home and she wants to remain with her parents and act as per their advise. The mother of the detenue is also enquired and she would state that the detenue has completed B.Sc. [information Technology] Course and steps are being taken to do marriage of the detenue with her relative after getting her consent.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a chance
may be given to the petitioner to interact with the detenue.
4 Heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents/State.
5 This Court, on going through the materials, has also put a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the proof of marriage and except showing the photograph, no proof of marriage has been produced despite the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the detenue is said to have been conducted at a Church in Pandarakulam, Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli District.
6 The detenue is a major [DOB 09.04.1998] and she expressed her willingness to remain with her parents and the Court is not in a position to
4
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.,
AP
come to the aid of the petitioner. Therefore, the detenue is set at liberty to
join with her parents as per her wishes.
7 In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.
[M.S.N, J.] [M.N.K., J.]
14.03.2019
AP
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Velipalayam Police Station
Nagapattinam 611 001.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.520/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant a writ of habeas corpus directing production of the detenue before the Court.
Whether to set the detenue at liberty under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Ebineser
State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam & The Inspector of Police, Velipalayam Police Station
M.Sathyanan
M.Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
