Dismissed

Lavanya v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2022HCP/2390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, a father sought to produce his 19-year-old daughter. The Court held that since the daughter was an adult and refused to go with her parents, the writ could not be executed against her wishes. The petition was closed after the police produced the petitioner, who declined to take her daughter away.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed as the petitioner refused to take the daughter from the custody of the grandmother, who undertook her care.

Lavanya Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.11.2022

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

Lavanya W/o.Ramesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶11

2.State represented by Inspector of Police, E-1 Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶12

3.Murthy S/o.Subramani

¶13

4.M.Baskar S/o.Murthy

¶14

5.Sridhar Babu S/o.Ramesh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the second respondent to produce the petitioner's daughter, namely, Ramya, aged 19 years, before this Court from the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 5 and set her at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for Mr.P.J.Anitha

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor [R1 & R2] *****

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J. ]

¶24

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to produce the petitioner's daughter, namely, Ramya, aged 19 years, before this Court from the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 5 and set her at liberty.

¶25

Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for

¶26

Mr.P.J.Anitha, learned counsel, on record, for the petitioner, submitted that

¶27

he is not pressing this petition against the fifth respondent and has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶28

2/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶31

Recording the same, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn as against the fifth respondent.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that her daughter Ramya went

¶33

missing from 02.11.2022, that she is in the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4 and that police are not taking effective steps to secure her.

¶34

Today, Ms.N.Nirmala, Inspector of Police, All Women Police

¶35

Station, Ponneri Police Station [Mobile No.94981 45277], is present.

¶36

On instructions, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, E-1 Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District [second respondent herein], based on which, a case in Ponneri P.S.Crime No.320 of 2022 has been registered on 03.11.2022 for “woman missing”. While so, Ramya appeared before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, for protection. An enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, in which, all the parties including the

¶37

3/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶40

petitioner and Ramya appeared. After noticing that Ramya was more than 18 years, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, could not forcibly hand over her custody to the petitioner against her will. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶41

Today, the police produced Ramya. The petitioner was also present.

¶42

When we enquired Ramya, she stated that her date of birth is 25.10.2003; she is studying final year B.Com in a local college; she is in love with Baskar [fourth respondent herein]; since her parents were not agreeable for their marriage, she left her parental home and she is now residing with Baskar's grandmother Vembuli.

¶43

We permitted the petitioner to interact with Ramya in the Mediation Room for an hour and thereafter, when we asked Ramya as to with whom she wants to go, she stated that she does not want to go with the petitioner and that she is safe in the house of Vembuli. Vembuli, who was also present in the Court, stated that she is taking care of Ramya and would take all responsibility for that.

¶44

4/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶47

Since Ramya is not a juvenile, we cannot forcibly handover her to the

¶48

petitioner against her wishes. Recording the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

¶49

[PNP, J.] [GCS, J.] 24.11.2022

¶50

Index: Yes/No gm

¶51

¶52

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶53

2.The Inspector of Police, E-1 Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶54

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶55

5/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶58

P.N.PRAKASH, J. and G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶59

¶60

H.C.P.No.2390 of 2022

¶61

24.11.2022

¶62

6/6

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Lavanya v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavanya v. the Superintendent 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

Chemical Contruction Company Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its

Murali Krishna Chakrala Vs the Deputy Director

V.Lakshmi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by the Superintendent of Police

R.Vanitha Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ranjith Vs State Rep.by