Dismissed

R.Vijaykumar v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC18 Aug 2023HCP/1571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner sought the release of his wife alleging forced marriage. The Court noted the detenue was a major residing voluntarily with her parents and denying the marriage. It directed the matter to be tried under Personal Law.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition was closed without production of the detenue as she resides with her parents by her own volition.

R.Vijaykumar Vs the Commissioner of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P.No.1571 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.08.2023

¶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.1571 of 2023

R.Vijayakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai – 600 013.

¶13

3.Lawrance

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Hebeas Corpus Petition directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's wife Angel Price, aged about 23 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhana Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Natarajan for R3

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

H.C.P.No.1571 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

This habeas corpus petition has been filed to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's wife Angel Price, aged about 23 years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶23

Today when the habeas corpus petition is taken up for hearing, the respondent Police has produced the detenue. The petitioner is also present before this Court.

¶24

When we enquired with the detenue, she would state that, she had been working in Global Healthcare Medical Billing, Velachery, Chennai, where the petitioner also had been working and due to the friendship developed with him, he compelled her as if to solemnise a marriage, therefore not on her own volition, she accepted for marrying him and she would further submit that, she is presently residing with her parents and she wants to continue to be with the parents and does not want to go with the petitioner as he sought for in this habeas corpus petition.

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

H.C.P.No.1571 of 2023

¶28

In view of the aforestated event, though it was claimed by the

¶29

petitioner that there has been a marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the daughter of the 3^rd respondent i.e., detenue, he has to workout his remedy under Personal Law before the concerned forum.

¶30

Insofar as this habeas corpus petition is concerned, since the detenue being a major on her own volition is residing only with her parents and she also denied the marriage said to have been solemnised between the petitioner and the detenue, we do not find that the detenue is in illegal custody with any one including the parents. Recording the same, we feel that, this habeas corpus petition can be closed, accordingly it is closed.

¶31

(R.S.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 18.08.2023

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

H.C.P.No.1571 of 2023

¶36

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

¶37

Sgl

¶38

¶39

1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai – 600 013.

¶41

H.C.P.No.1571 of 2023

¶42

18.08.2023

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

R.Vijaykumar v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vijaykumar v. the Commissioner 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

Vijayraj Surana Vs Assistant Director

The Chairman Vs a. Moses Mohanraj

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Padmavathi

The Secretary to Govenment Vs K.Murugan

M.Sugantha Jayanthi Vs Vijayakumar

Tmt.P.Kala Vs the Secretary to Government