Dismissed

Rafeena Mohammed v. The Joint Secretary

Madras HC29 Nov 2023WP/26578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus directing respondent Joint Secretary MEA to order magistrate enquiry under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 to extradite 4th respondent from Singapore for child custody purposes. Court found petition devoid of merits and dismissed, noting prior HC petition dismissed petitioner to approach appropriate forum for custody.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directed to Respondent 1 to order magistrate enquiry under Section 5 of Extradition Act, 1962 was refused.

Rafeena Mohammed Vs The Joint Secretary — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

Rafeena Mohammed

...Petitioner

-Vs-

The Joint Secretary, O/o. Ministry of External Affairs, 68, College Road, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, 7th Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai, TamilNadu.

¶11

The District Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Muthupettai Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶13

Sulthanul Ariffin.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps to order magistrate enquiry contemplated section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 in order to bring the 4th respondent to our country.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Govt., Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus

¶22

directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps to order magistrate enquiry as contemplated under section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 in order to bring the 4th respondent to our country.

¶23

2. It is seen that this petitioner got married on 07.01.2016 and gave birth of twin children, one is male and another one is female child. Due to misunderstanding between this petitioner and the 4th respondent, they got separated. Thereafter, the petitioner handed over the children to 4 th respondent. Based on the request of the 4th respondent, children were sent by the petitioner and handed over for custody to the 4 th respondent. However, without informing to the petitioner, children were brought by the 4th respondent and gone to Singapore. In fact, the petitioner also filed

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

¶27

HCP.No.2486 of 2019 before this court. This court by order dated 13.12.2019 dismissed the said Habeas Corpus Petition and also directed the

¶28

petitioner to workout her remedy before appropriate forum by initiating appropriate legal proceedings regarding the custody of children. Therefore, after failing before this Hon'ble Court by way of Habeas Corpus Petition, once again this petition has been filed for the above said relief.

¶29

3. Therefore, direction sought for in this writ petition cannot be considered. Th is court finds no merits in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶30

29.11.2023

¶31

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gvn

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

¶35

¶36

The Joint Secretary, O/o. Ministry of External Affairs, 68, College Road, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, 7th Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai, TamilNadu.

¶37

The District Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District.

¶38

The Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Muthupettai Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶39

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

¶43

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

gvn

W.P.No.26578 of 2022

29.11.2023

5/5

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

Rafeena Mohammed v. The Joint Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafeena Mohammed v. The Joint Secretary

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

S.Menaka Vs State by

Sabrina, Aged 42 Years Vs M/S.Atlantic Leather Exports

Gunasekaran Vs State Rep by

M/S.Lupin Limited Vs State Rep. by

M/S.Kgs Developers Limited Vs Mr.Rakesh Sheth

Dr.Ramachandran Vs Appropriate Authority for Sub-District