Dismissed

Umar Mukthar v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Mar 2023HCP(MD)/258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed for habeas corpus to release the petitioner's wife, who was detained. Although a procedural lapse was noted regarding her marriage, the court held that as the detenu is a major, her choice to stay away from the petitioner is paramount, closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition closed; no direction to produce the body of the detenu before the Court.

Umar Mukthar Vs The Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

HCP(MD)No.258 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.258 of 2023

¶7

Umar Mukthar .. Petitioner /Husband of

¶8

the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Ilaiyankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.Jesindharani .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 herein to produce the body or person of the petitioner's wife/detenu by name Shajana @ Sumaiya, D/o.Jeyaraj, aged about 20 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

HCP(MD)No.258 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For R1 & R2 :Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶20

The detenu was produced on 24.02.2023 and at that time certificates were produced by the petitioner to show that he has married the detenu in Jamath at Ramanathapuram, therefore, this Court directed the respondent police to verify whether the certificates produced are genunine and valid.

¶21

Now, it is reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 that the marriage in the Jamath at Ramanathapuram been solemnized without getting consent from the Jamath to which the petitioner belong, which means that there is some procedural lapse in the said marriage.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

HCP(MD)No.258 of 2023

¶25

Be that as it may, now, the girl, who is produced before this Court,

¶26

wants to be away from her mother since she is not compatible with her mother due to some domestic issues. The detenue being a major, choice is left open to her and as far as habeas corpus petition is concerned since the girl has not expressed any wish to live with the petitioner, who claims to be her husband, the habeas corpus petition is closed.

¶27

Accordingly, this petition is closed.

¶28

(G.J.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 02.03.2023

¶29

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC :Yes/No am

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Ilaiyankudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶33

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

HCP(MD)No.258 of 2023

¶37

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶38

¶39

ORDER MADE IN

¶40

H.C.P.(MD)No.258 of 2023

¶41

02.03.2023

¶42

Page 4 of 4

¶43

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

Umar Mukthar v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umar Mukthar 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

Murugan Vs The Superintendent of Police

G.Neelamegam Vs The Secretary to Government

U.Sinthal Vs The Superintendent of Police

J.Suniram Vs Mrs.M.Razia Beham

Idol Sri Kalyanapasupathees- Vs K. Natarajan

C.Jenifer Vs The Superintendent of Police