Dismissed

Sonia Idascudder Samipillai v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC16 Jul 2021HCP/1042/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of habeas corpus to produce the petitioner's minor daughter. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner knew the husband's location but could not produce evidence of the child's illegal detention, resulting in the continuation of relief via the pending divorce custody suit.

What did the court decide?

The petition for habeas corpus was dismissed; the District Court was directed to conclude the pending custody proceedings within six months.

Sonia Idascudder Samipillai Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 08.07.2021

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 16.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.NO.1042 OF 2021

¶7

Sonia Idascudder Samipillai

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, St.Thomas Mount, Greater Chennai City.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station, Chennai – 600 100.

¶13

Wilson Ramesh Suthanthirapandi ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER:-

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 3^rd respondent to produce the petitioner's minor daughter by name Ms.Chelsea Wilson, aged about 9 years, before this Court, from the custody of the 4^th respondent and hand over to the petitioner.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Hariharan For M/s.KV Law Firm

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶21

This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to direct the 3^rd respondent to produce the petitioner's minor daughter by name Ms.Chelsea Wilson, aged about 9 years, before this Court, from the custody of the 4^th respondent and hand over to the petitioner.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that her daughter Chelsea, aged about 9 years, is in the illegal custody of her husband viz., Wilson Ramesh, fourth respondent herein and she does not know about their whereabouts at all. Therefore, after sending a representation dated 25.05.2021 by post to the Chief Minister Cell with copies marked to the police, the petitioner has filed the present habeas corpus petition.

¶23

Even in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has stated that she left the child in India and went to the Unites States for higher studies in September 2017 and returned in March 2019 and in that interregnum, her husband had taken away the child from her parental home. She has further stated that she has filed a divorce proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.149 of 2019 in the District Court, Thiruvallur, in which, she has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 for the custody of her daughter and those proceedings are pending.

¶24

In the light of the aforesaid averments that have been made by the petitioner in her own affidavit filed in support of this habeas corpus petition, we are afraid that we cannot grant the relief of habeas corpus.

¶25

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded with us to make arrangements for the petitioner to see her child at least by video conferencing.

¶26

Therefore, we directed the police to make arrangements and accordingly, the petitioner, her husband Wilson Ramesh, fourth respondent and child Chelsea appeared before this Court via video conference and when we enquired with the petitioner's husband, he stated that his wife knows his address and mobile number. However, Wilson Ramesh, fourth respondent, furnished his present address, which is No.2/2, Ground Floor, 6^th Cross 4^th Main, New BEL Road, MLA Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 094 and Mobile No.95388 02536.

¶27

In fact, the petitioner herself has given the above address and mobile number in her representation dated 25.05.2021 and therefore, it cannot be stated that she was not aware of the whereabouts of her husband and daughter.

¶28

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

¶29

In view of the above, it cannot be stated that Chelsea, aged about 9 years, who is the daughter of the petitioner, is in the illegal custody of the petitioner's husband viz., Wilson Ramesh, fourth respondent, for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus.

¶30

Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. However, we direct the District Court, Thiruvallur, to complete the proceedings in I.D.O.P.No.149 of 2019 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the COVID-19 protocols.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

nsd

¶35

¶36

The District Judge, Thiruvallur.

¶37

The Commissioner of Police,

¶38

Greater Chennai City.

¶39

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, St.Thomas Mount, Greater Chennai City.

¶40

The Inspector of Police,

¶41

Pallikaranai Police Station,

¶42

Chennai – 600 100.

¶43

The Public Prosecutor,

¶44

High Court, Madras.

¶45

+1cc to M/s.KV Law Firm, Advocate, S.R.No.33892

¶46

H.C.P.NO.1042 OF 2021

¶47

UM(CO)

¶48

PBS/09/08/2021

¶49

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

Sonia Idascudder Samipillai v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia Idascudder Samipillai v. the Commissioner 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

Karthi @ Karthikeyan Vs the State Rep.by

Tamil @ Tamilarasan Vs State of Tamilnadu Represented by

Viswanathan Vs the State Rep.by

State Rep. by , Vs Sundar, Aged 44 Years, A1

Kalaiselvi Vs the Secretary to Government

D.Vinayagam Vs the Superintendent of Police