Dismissed

V.Deepa v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Mar 2022HCP(MD)/155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Deepa for the production of her husband Vetrivel, alleged to be missing for three months. The Court dismissed the petition, accepting the Respondent Police's version that the petitioner and husband were not in a live-in relationship, the first marriage was subsisting, and the husband left voluntarily after a property dispute.

What did the court decide?

The writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed as the allegedly missing person had voluntarily left the petitioner's house and there was no illegal detention.

V.Deepa Vs The Superintendent of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD) No.155 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.03.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶8

H.C.P.(MD) No.155 of 2022

¶9

V.Deepa ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶12

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶13

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶14

Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the person or body of the detenue, namely, Vetrivel, S/o.Krishnasamy, aged about 57 years and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Viji

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. AND

¶20

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶21

The petitioner seeks for production of the person of her husband Vetrivel, who is said to be missing since three months.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶23

Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the claim of the petitioner is that she is the wife of the detenue itself is incorrect. According to the respondent Police, the petitioner and the detenue were in livehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in relationship. It is also stated that the first marriage between

¶24

1/2

¶25

H.C.P.(MD) No.155 of 2022

¶26

the detenue and his wife is still subsisting. It is also stated that the detenue has left the house of the petitioner, since she insisted him to transfer the property in her name. This being the case of voluntary leaving, there is no case of illegal custody or illegal detention. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

¶32

Note In view of the present lock down owing : to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

H.C.P.(MD) No.155 of 2022 01.03.2022

¶34

KS(CO) TR(17.03.2022) 2P 4C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

V.Deepa v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Deepa 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

Shanthi Vs Nisha Parthiban

Muthulakshmi K Vs the Additional Inspector General of Prison

Murugesan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Nageswari Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Karthikeyan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Subramanian Vs The Superintendent of Police