Dismissed

Nagachandra Vathana v. Commissioner of Police

Madras HC3 Aug 2023HCP/1331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking custody of her minor daughter allegedly illegally held by the third respondent (her husband). The court rejected the petition, ruling that the child being with her natural guardian did not constitute illegal custody.

What did the court decide?

Petition for Habeas Corpus dismissed as witness was in the lawful custody of her natural father.

Nagachandra Vathana Vs Commissioner of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶7

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

Nagachandra Vathana

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem – 636 006.

¶12

2.State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town.

¶13

3.S.Ramesh Aravind ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to secure the petitioner's minor daughter Jeevika, aged about 4 years from the illegal custody of the 3^rd respondent and produce her before this Court and handover her to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Diwaagar

¶16

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

¶17

1/8

¶18

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John for R1 and R2

¶20

: Mr.P.Tamilavel for R3

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶23

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to secure the petitioner's minor daughter Jeevika, aged about 4 years from the illegal custody of the third respondent and produce her before this Court and handover her to the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner is the wife of the third respondent, between whom

¶25

the marriage was taken place in the year 2016, out of the wedlock, they

¶26

gave birth to a female child namely, Jeevika on 12.12.2018.

¶27

Thereafter in the year 2022, it seems that, there has been a difference of opinion between them which arose the separation between them as the petitioner/wife seems to have left the matrimonial house in the year 2022 and thereafter there seems to have no reunion between them.

¶28

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

¶29

2/8

¶30

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶31

Subsequently, the petitioner/wife filed H.M.O.P.No.414 of 2022

¶32

on the file of the Family Court at Salem for a relief of restitution of conjugal rights against the third respondent.

¶33

That apart, the petitioner/wife also filed G.W.O.P.No.516 of

¶34

2022 in the same Court.

¶35

The said GWOP is pending and in the H.M.O.P.No.414 of 2022 since the third respondent, who was the respondent therein, was set ex parte, subsequently on coming to know the fact that in the HMOP an ex parte order was passed, he had filed a petition to set aside the order along with the counter affidavit in the main HMOP.

¶36

In fact, initially that was not taken on record by the Family Court, therefore it triggered the 3^rd respondent namely, husband to come before this Court and filed a revision in C.R.P.No.949 of 2023, where this Court passed an order on 28.03.2023 giving some directions to the Family Court Judge to accept the counter and to entertain the petition filed by the third respondent to set aside the ex parte order, that application is still pending.

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶40

In the meanwhile, it is submitted across the Bar by both the

¶41

learned counsel appearing for the parties that, there is no Presiding

¶42

Officer in the said Court namely, Family Court at Salem.

¶43

When that being the position, now the present HCP has been

¶44

filed as if the detenue i.e., the daughter of the petitioner and the third respondent is in the illegal custody.

¶45

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶46

appearing for the respondent Police on instructions would submit that, the detenue girl is 4 years old minor, who is with the third respondent, who is none other than the father of the detenue girl and since it is the position where the detenue girl is with one of the natural guardian namely, third respondent/father, it cannot be construed as any illegal custody, therefore the question of producing the body or the person of the detenue minor girl before this Court does not arise, hence the HCP itself is misconceived, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted.

¶47

Mr.P.Tamilavel, learned counsel appearing for the third

¶48

respondent would contend that, insofar as the detenue minor girl is 4/8

¶49

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

¶50

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶51

concerned, she is an autism affected child, therefore some treatment is going on at Bangalore, therefore round the clock care is required and medication and continuous medical care also is required, for these reasons the third respondent is looking after the child. Moreover, the petitioner/wife in the year 2022 abruptly left the matrimonial home and thereafter no attempt has been made to come and see the child even till today, that is the submission made by the learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶52

However, Mr.R.S.Diwaagar, learned counsel for the petitioner/ wife by relying upon the order passed on 21.01.2023 by the Family Court in H.M.O.P.No.414 of 2022 was trying to impress upon this Court about the conduct of the third respondent as despite the notice having been served, he did not choose to appear before the Court and he did not produce the child inspite of the orders having been passed.

¶53

Be that as it may, now the question before us is whether the detenue girl child is in illegal custody at the hands of anyone including the third respondent.

¶54

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

¶55

5/8

¶56

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶57

This has been made clear by the Prosecution side that, the

¶58

detenue girl child is none other than the daughter of the third respondent, who is the father of the detenue and the third respondent/father is taking care of the detenue child and therefore it cannot be construed as an illegal custody, when that being the position, this Court is not inclined to entertain this habeas corpus petition.

¶59

If at all the petitioner/wife wants to see the detenue girl child or if she wants to get the custody of the girl child by getting an order to appoint her as Guardian within the meaning of law, for which the said petitioner already approached the concerned Court and filed GWOP, it is for the petitioner to pursue those cases in the manner known to law.

¶60

Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, whenever the next hearing date is fixed after the Presiding Officer is posted in that Court, where the presence of the third respondent is required, certainly the third respondent should appear before the Court and he should pursue the petition already been filed to set aside the ex parte order in the HMOP cited supra against him.

¶61

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

¶62

6/8

¶63

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶64

I7. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances, since there

¶65

has been no illegal custody on the part of the detenue girl either in the hands of the third respondent or anyone, this Habeas Corpus Petition is to be rejected, accordingly it is dismissed.

¶66

(R.S.K., J.) (K.B., J.)

¶67

03.08.2023

¶68

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶69

Sgl/vji

¶70

¶71

1.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem 636 006.

¶72

2.The Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town.

¶73

The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

¶74

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

¶75

7/8

¶76

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶77

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. And K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶78

Sgl

¶79

H.C.P.No.1331 of 2023

¶80

03.08.2023

¶81

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

¶82

8/8

Nagachandra Vathana v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagachandra Vathana v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Siddarthan Vs the Chief Secretary to Govt

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs a.Lokose

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Annamalai

Ganesan Vs State Rep.by

S.Sivan Vs the Regional Accounts Officer(Audit)

R.Thirumaran Vs the District Educational Officer