Disposed¶32

Shyam Sundar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Habeas Corpus – Minor child custody

Madras HC24 Oct 2025HCP(MD)/1224/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 for custody of infant daughter detained by maternal grandparents after mother's death; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court found child safe, not in unlawful custody; custody to be decided by appropriate Court; caveat against adoption without father's information/written consent; petition closed, not allowed.

What did the court decide?

No custody relief granted; the Habeas Corpus Petition was closed, with a caveat recorded that no adoption of the child may take place without informing the petitioner or obtaining his written consent. ¶32

Shyam Sundar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's minor daughter (detenue Siva Jovikaa) is in unlawful custody of respondents 3 and 4, and whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue directing respondents 1 and 2 to produce the child and hand over her custody to the petitioner.

¶15

Court's answer

Issues relating to custody of the child must be taken up only before the appropriate Court by filing the necessary application; the habeas corpus petition is not the proper forum for deciding custody.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The child is safe and cannot be stated to be in unlawful or illegal custody; accordingly the Habeas Corpus Petition was closed.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Court placed a caveat that no adoption of the child can ever be made without informing the petitioner or obtaining written consent from the petitioner.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus - Minor child custody - Father (Shyam Sundar) sought production and custody of his infant daughter (Siva Jovikaa, aged about 88 days) allegedly kept by her grandparents (respondents 3 and 4) after the mother's death on 14.07.2025, two days after the child's birth on 12.07.2025 - Respondents 3 and 4 appeared in Court, stated they had no objection to the petitioner visiting the child at any time and no intention of giving the child in adoption - Court held the child is safe and not in unlawful or illegal custody, observed that custody issues must be agitated only before the appropriate Court by filing the necessary application, placed a caveat that no adoption can occur without informing the petitioner or obtaining his written consent, and closed the Habeas Corpus Petition (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, H.C.P.(MD)No.1224 of 2025, 24.10.2025, C.V.Karthikeyan and R.Vijayakumar, JJ.).

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.1224 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.1224 of 2025

Shyam Sundar

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District.

¶12

Sakthivelan

¶13

4.Rekha

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the person or body of petitioner's minor daughter, the detenue namely Siva Jovikaa, D/o.Shyam Sundar, aged about 88 days before this Court and handover the custody of her to the petitioner.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

H.C.P.(MD)No.1224 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poornachandran For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2

¶20

Mr.R.Sevugaraja for R3 & R4

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)

¶23

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed complaining that the young infant of the petitioner, who was born on 12.07.2025, is now with the parents-in-law of the petitioner, who had been impleaded as respondents 3 and 4. The wife of the petitioner/mother of the young child had died on 14.07.2025, within two days of giving birth. It had been stated that the petitioner had gone over to the residence of the respondents 3 and 4 to see the child, but he was not permitted to see the child.

¶24

2. We had directed notice to be issued to the respondents 3 and 4. Both the respondents 3 and 4 are present in Court. They had very

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶26

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

¶27

H.C.P.(MD)No.1224 of 2025

¶28

categorically stated that they have no objection for the petitioner in coming over to their residence at any time to spend time with the child. They have also stated that they have had no intention to hand the child in adoption to anybody and we would also place a caveat that no such adoption can ever be made without informing the petitioner or obtaining written consent from the petitioner herein.

¶29

3 . The issues relating to custody of the child will have to be

¶30

taken up only before the appropriate Court by filing necessary application in that regard. Since, the child is safe and is also cannot be stated to be in unlawful or illegal custody, we would close this Habeas

¶31

Corpus Petition.

¶32

4. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.

¶33

vsm

¶34

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 24.10.2025

¶35

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶36

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