Dismissed

M.Palanisamy v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Feb 2021HCP/318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition for habeas corpus was dismissed as the detenue, aged 19, voluntarily went with the third respondent, married him, and expressed willingness to return with her husband once a domestic misunderstanding was resolved. The court noted she was not a minor.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition was closed as the detenue was found to have voluntarily left with respondents and wished to return to her husband.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.02.2021

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P. No.318 of 2021

¶5

M.Palanisamy ..Petitioner/father of the detenue

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengam, Thiruvannamali District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamali District. 3.V.Kathiravan .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the detenue, Vidhya Shivanathi (aged 19 years), before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner .. Mr.C.Arul Murugan For Respondents .. Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶8

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

¶9

The present habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to secure the detenue, Vidhya Shivanathi (aged 19 years) and produce her before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter Vidhya Shivanathi is in illegal detention of the 3^rd respondent and the police are not taking effective steps to secure her.

¶11

Today, Mr.G.M.Selvan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police is present. The petitioner, his wife, the 3^rd respondent and Vidhya Shivanathi are also present.

¶12

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

¶13

When we enquired Vidhya Shivanathi, she stated that her date of birth is 28.01.2001 and she, on her own, had volition gone with the 3^rd respondent and got married with him. She further stated that she is in the family way. She also stated that some mis-understanding arose between her husband and her, and therefore, she requested her parents to come and take her back; now, the issues have been resolved and that she wants to go with her husband.

¶14

Since Vidhya Shivanathi is not a minor and that she
has, on her own volition, gone with the 3 rd respondent and got
married to him, it cannot be stated that she is in illegal
custody of the 3 rd respondent.
6. Recording the same, this Habeas Corpus Petition is
closed.
7. We place on record our appreciation to the 2 nd
respondent for co-ordinating with the police of Krishnagiri
District and ensuring the presence of the 3 rd respondent and
Vidhya Shivanathi before this Court today.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
dsa
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Chengam, Thiruvannamali District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Chengam Police Station,
Chengam Taluk,
Thiruvannamali District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.G.Arul Murugan Advocate sr11769

¶15

H.C.P. No. 318 of 2021

¶16

aa17/03/2021

¶17

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

M.Palanisamy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Palanisamy 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

C.Kumar Vs Commissioner of Police

Elavarasan Vs State Rep. by

M.Suresh Khatri, Male, Aged 44 Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Pandurangan Vs the Commissioner F Police

Mumthaj Begam Vs the Commissioner of Police

Krishna Vs the State Represented by