Disposed

U.Kavitha v. State Rep by

Madras HC4 Jan 2021HCP/2325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a habeas corpus petition disputing the father's custody of two children, ruling that such custody is not per se illegal. The court permitted the petitioner to visit the children at the mediation centre and directed the District Judge to expedite a decision on interim custody.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition was closed; the petitioner was permitted to be with the children at the Mediation Centre, and the Principal District Judge was directed to pass orders expeditiously.

U.Kavitha Vs State Rep by — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.01.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

H.C.P. No. 2325 of 2020

¶6

U.Kavitha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,Avadi,
Chennai – 600 054.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Pattabiram Police Station,
Chennai – 600 072.
4.J.Andrews .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents to produce the detenue namely A.Drishya, D/o.Andrews and U.Kavitha aged about 5 years and 11 months or her body before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner.

¶8

This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenue namely A.Drishya, D/o.Andrews and U.Kavitha aged about 5 years and 11 months or her body before this Court and hand over the custody

¶9

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

¶10

to the petitioner.

¶11

Today, Ms.R.Renuka Devi (Mobile No.9498134356), Women Grade-I 38978, All Women Police Station, Avadi, Chennai – 600 054, is present.

¶12

It is seen that the dispute is essentially between the spouses for the custody of their children. It is alleged that the father is having the illegal custody of his two children and he is not allowing the petitioner to even see them.

¶13

On the direction of this court, the fourth respondent produced the two children Laksheeth and Drishya before this Court and the petitioner is also present. The petitioner is permitted to be with the children at the Mediation Centre till 4.30 p.m. today. Thereafter, it is left to the parties to work out their remedies before the appropriate Court, since per se the custody of the children with the father cannot be said to be illegal.

¶14

It is represented that the husband/4th respondent has filed G.W.O.P.No.131 of 2020 before the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. It is open to the wife/petitioner to file an emergent application for interim custody/visitation rights and on such application being filed, the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, is directed to pass orders thereon, expeditiously.

¶15

With the above directions, this habeas corpus petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

mmi/nsd

¶19

¶20

1.The Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur.

¶21

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City.

¶22

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,Avadi, Chennai – 600 054.

¶23

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

¶24

4.The Inspector of Police, Pattabiram Police Station, Chennai – 600 072.

¶25

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.V.Rajeshbabu, Advocate, S.R.No. 475

¶27

H.C.P. No. 2325 of 2020

¶28

JP(CO) GN(01/02/2021)

¶29

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

U.Kavitha v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Kavitha v. State Rep by

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

E.F.Daniel Yacob Vs the Commissioner of Police

Santhanasamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Arunkumar Vs the Commissioner of Police