Disposed

Miruthula v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Dec 2024HCP/2931/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother sought habeas corpus for custody of her infant son from the father. Police produced the child; father declined to resume matrimonial life. Relying on Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the court held a child under five ordinarily stays with the mother and granted her custody.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to take custody of the minor child forthwith; father may approach competent court for visitation rights.

Miruthula Vs the Superintendent of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

HCP.No.2931 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.2931 of 2024

¶7

Miruthula ... PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

1 The Superintendent of Police Erode District , Erode - 638 001.

¶10

2 The Inspector of Police

¶11

Sathyamangalam Police Station,

¶12

Erode District - 638 401.

¶13

3 P. Manikandan ... RESPONDENT

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioners minor son namely Hariaadhithya son of Manikandan, aged about 1 year, 5 months before this Hon'ble Court, handover to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Raj Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1 and R2 : Mr. G. Krishnakumar, for R3

¶16

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

Page 1 of 6

ORDER

HCP.No.2931 of 2024

(Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶21

The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been instituted to direct the respondents

¶22

to produce the minor baby, namely, Manikandan, aged about one year and 5 months.

¶23

The marriage between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was solemnized on 29.08.2022 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. From and out of wedlock, a male baby born on 25.05.2023, now aged about one year and 5 months. Matrimonial dispute exists between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

¶24

The 2nd respondent police produced the baby along with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is also present before this Court. The mother of the 3rd respondent is also present.

¶25

We have examined the parties.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6

¶27

HCP.No.2931 of 2024

¶28

The 3rd respondent states that he is not willing to resume the matrimonial home. He took such a decision in consultation with his mother in the Court. He further says that he require some more time to think about resumption of matrimonial home.

¶29

The petitioner made a submission that presently she is residing along her mother and working. She is ready and willing to resume the matrimonial home with the 3rd respondent. When the petitioner is ready and willing to resume the matrimonial home, the 3rd respondent rejected the proposal by stating that he require some more time to think about the said proposal. However, it is for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent to take a decision with the assistance of the elders of the family or by approaching the competent Court of Law.

¶30

As far as the minor boy, aged about one year and 5 months is concerned, Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, enumerates that " in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, the father and after him, the mother provided that the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother."

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

HCP.No.2931 of 2024

¶34

The minor boy is aged about one year and 5 months and therefore, the

¶35

custody of the child must be preferably with the mother at this stage. Regarding Matrimonial dispute, the parties are at liberty to settle the same in the manner known to law.

¶36

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we have allowed the

¶37

petitioner to take custody of the minor child forthwith. Regarding visitation

¶38

rights, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to approach the competent Court of Law.

¶39

Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.

¶40

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 03.12.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶41

mrp

¶42

¶43

1 The Superintendent of Police Erode District , Erode - 638 001.

¶44

2 The Inspector of Police Sathyamangalam Police Station, Erode District - 638 401.

¶45

The Public Prosecutor,

¶46

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

Page 4 of 6

HCP.No.2931 of 2024

High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 6

¶51

HCP.No.2931 of 2024

¶52

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶53

mrp

¶54

H.C.P.No.2931 of 2024

¶55

03.12.2024

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6

Miruthula v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miruthula 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

R.Subramanian Vs Union of India

S.Murugesan Vs Union of India

The Union Of India Vs The Registrar

A.M. Abdul Latheef, Rep. by Vs 1. the A.T. for Forfeited

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Stat,E Represented by

Rahman Sadiq Vs the Union of India