Disposed

S.Sujendhar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Apr 2019HCP/630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition filed by the father for the custody of his minor son abducted by the mother, the Court avoided adjudicating conflicting allegations. Instead, it facilitated a settlement granting the father visitation rights upon prior intimation.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition disposed of; Petitioner granted right of visitation with prior intimation to the mother and Respondent-1; Custody left for competent forum.

S.Sujendhar Vs the Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.04.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶7

HCP.No.630 of 2019

¶8

S.Sujendhar .. Petitioner/Petitioner of the detenue
Versus
1.The Inspector of Police,
W-32, All Women Police Station,
Madipakkam, Chennai.
2.Thaiyalnayaki
3.Sumathi Palani
4.Jayakumar
5.Kannan .. Respondents

¶9

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 secure the detenue S.Sithar, aged about 10 years, the son of the petitioner herein, who is illegally detained by respondents 2 to 5 and to produce him before this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Gokulakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj No.I Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶13

The petitioner is the father of the minor detenu, namely Sithar, aged about 10 years (D.O.B.11.08.2008). According to

¶14

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

¶15

him, he married the second respondent on 11.11.2007 and out of wedlock, they have begotten minor detenu and daughter namely Mona Sree, aged about 1 ½ years. It is further stated by the petitioner that some time after the marriage, difference of opinion arose between him and the second respondent and despite mediator efforts done by the elders of the family members on either side, it fails. The minor detenu was admitted in New Prince Matriculation School, Chennai and undergoing studies in the 5^th standard and the second respondent under the pretext of visiting the matrimonial home, during November 2018, along with the new born baby namely, Mona Sree suddenly vanished on 05.01.2019 along with the minor detenu. The petitioner, in this regard, has also lodged a complaint dated 13.02.2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent, based on which, CSR number was assigned. The petitioner apprehending safety and well being of the minor detenu at the hands of the 2^nd respondent, came forward to file this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

The Habeas Corpus Petition was entertained on 25.03.2019 and called today. The second respondent was produced by the 1^st respondent along with the minor detenu and she would state that the marriage between her and the petitioner was a love marriage and after the birth of two children, difference arose and the petitioner started harassing her on the pretext of dowry and unable to bear with the torture, she left the matrimonial home along with the minor detenu. The second respondent would further add that for want of Transfer Certificate, she is not in a position to admit the minor detenu and taking efforts to admit him in Nalantha School, Ariyalur and the education career of the minor detenu would be taken care of.

¶17

The petitioner is also present before this Court and he narrated an entirely different story and however, this Court is not inclined to go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegation levelled by the petitioner and the wife / 2^nd respondent and vice versa. The matter was passed over and the petitioner, 2^nd respondent and the detenu met in the chambers of the Public Prosecutor and now they came out with a proposal. As regards visitation rights of the petitioner in respect of the minor detenu, the 2^nd respondent would also state that she has no objection for the petitioner to visit and see the minor detenu as well as the minor daughter in her home at Ariyalur and she would further add that advance intimation may be given as to the proposal of the petitioner to have visitation right of the two children.

¶18

Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that for such visit, prior intimation may also be given to the 1^st respondent so as to avoid any untoward events / happenings.

¶19

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

¶20

The 2^nd respondent is the biological mother of the two minor children and insofar as the plea of custody is concerned, the parties are at liberty to invoke the competent forum with regard to the custody of the children. As regard visitation rights, the petitioner shall give advance intimation to the 2^nd respondent by way of call through mobile phone of the 2^nd respondent as well as by message, intimating the date of such visitation and the petitioner, being the biological father, is entitled to have such a visitation right to see his children. A probable time of visitation shall be weekend of Saturdays and Sundays and time is fixed between 11.00 A.M and 04.00 P.M. The petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent, being the parents of the minor detenu and minor daughter shall make every endeavor to create a congenial atmosphere and shall not create any psychological scare on the interest and welfare of the detenu and both of them shall extend their maximum cooperation not only to each other but also to the 1^st respondent in that regard. The petitioner is also at liberty to meet out the educational and maintenance expenses of both the children and shall cooperate with the 2^nd respondent to get the testimonials/certificates of the minor detenu from New Prince Matriculation School, Chennai, at an early date.

¶21

The Habeas Corpus petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sk To 1.The Inspector of Police, W-32, All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1 cc to M/s.T.Gowthaman, Advocate, Sr.No. 38696 HCP.No.630 of 2019 SSV(CO) CSL/06.06.2019

¶22

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

S.Sujendhar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sujendhar v. the Inspector of Police

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

Kutti Vs the Secretary to the Government

Manimegalai Vs the Secretary

M.Sivakumar Vs the Secretary to the Government

Lakshmi Praba Vs the Chief Secretary

S.Annakili Vs the Deputy Secretary to Government

A.Abdul Kudhus Vs State by the Assistant