Allowed

Hayagrivan v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC22 Feb 2024HCP(MD)/241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the Madurai bench directed the seventh respondent (mother) to hand over custody of a 3-year-old child to the petitioner father. The court ordered the Family Court to conclude the pending guardianship trial within 30 days, remaining the father as custodian until final disposal.

What did the court decide?

The seventh respondent directed to hand over custody of the minor child to the petitioner; Family Court directed to conclude trial within 30 days.

Hayagrivan Vs The Commissioner of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶7

Hayagrivan .. Petitioner/Father of the Detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thirupparankundram, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai.

¶12

4.Parvathi

¶13

5.Boothpandi

¶14

6.Pappu

¶15

7.Arunachalam

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

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

¶19

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶20

PRAYER:

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1, 2 & 3 to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter by name Govarthini Naachiyar D/o.Hayagrivan, Female, aged 3 years, the detenue in the present case, before this Court and consequently hand over the custody of the detenue to the petitioner.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman Additional Public Prosecutor For R-7 : Mr.Sivakumar

¶23

ORDER

¶24

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶25

The present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the father alleging that his minor daughter, aged about 3 years, was taken away from his custody by the seventh respondent, who is none other than his wife.

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶29

This case has a checkered history. Due to misunderstanding, the

¶30

parents got separated. The petitioner herein has sought for guardianship of the minor child before the Family Court, Madurai in G.W.O.P.No.1164 of 2022 and an ex parte order in his favour was passed. Thereafter, the child remained in the custody of the petitioner. While so, alleging that the child was forcibly taken away from his custody, the petitioner approached this Court by filing H.C.P.(MD).No.951 of 2023. This Court, after considering the rival submissions, directed the seventh respondent (wife) to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner herein. This order was passed on the strength of the ex parte order passed in G.W.O.P.No.1164 of 2022 dated 07.06.2023. At the same time, this Court also found that the service of the seventh respondent in the Guardianship and Wards Original Petition was not done in the manner known to law and an application filed to set aside the ex parte order is pending. Therefore, taking note of the said fact, this Court directed the parties to work out their remedy before the Family Court, where the application to set aside the ex parte order in the Guardianship and Wards Original Petition is pending.

¶31

Page 3 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶34

Unfortunately, thereafter, a criminal complaint has been lodged

¶35

against the petitioner by the seventh respondent alleging that on 17.01.2024, she was assaulted by the petitioner while she was crossing the residence of the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered by Thirunagar Police Station in Crime No.38 of 2024 for the offences under Section 294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. When the petitioner went to the Police Station along with the child to attend the enquiry, the Police has remanded the petitioner to judicial custody and since there was no one else to take care of the minor child, the complainant/seventh respondent/mother of the minor child was given custody of the child. Six days after his remand, the petitioner was granted bail and thereafter, he has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, which is now under consideration.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent

¶37

submitted that the interlocutory application filed to set aside the ex parte order and restore the Guardianship and Wards Original Petition has been allowed and the matter is now ripe for trial.

¶38

Page 4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶41

Considering the entire facts and the events, which has happened so

¶42

far, this Court is of the view that till the disposal of the Guardianship and Wards Original Petition, the petitioner shall be the custodian of the minor child and based on the outcome of the Guardianship and Wards Original Petition, the custody of the minor child shall be decided. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the trial of G.W.O.P.No.1164 of 2022 pending on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and he shall not delay the process. The Family Court, Madurai is directed to conclude the trial in G.W.O.P. No.1164 of 2022 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

The petitioner as well as the seventh respondent along with the

¶44

child are present before this Court today. The custody of the child is now handed over to the petitioner by the seventh respondent. It is open to the seventh respondent to approach the appropriate Court, if there is any delay in the disposal of the Guardianship and Wards Original Petition beyond the period prescribed above.

¶45

Page 5 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶48

With the above direction, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed

¶49

of.

¶50

(G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 22.02.2024

¶51

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶52

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thirupparankundram, Madurai.

¶53

3.The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai.

¶54

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

¶55

5.The Family Court, Madurai.

¶56

Page 6 of 7

¶57

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

¶58

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶59

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶60

¶61

H.C.P.(MD).No.241 of 2024

¶62

22.02.2024

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

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

Hayagrivan v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hayagrivan 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

The Inspector of Police Vs Vinu @ Sreevinu

Nagarathinam Vs The Commissioner of Police

T.Gokiladevi Vs The Superintendent of police

M.Amutha @ Anna Lakshmi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Arunkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Thavamani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by