Dr.S.Kasi Pandian v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Nov 2025HCP(MD)/1299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; H.C.P.(MD)No.1299 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Article 226 Constitution of India; Writ of Habeas Corpus; minor child custody; Master Sankar Pandian; aged 15 years; illegal custody; illegal confinement; second respondent wife; Pandimadevi; Dr.S.Kasi Pandian; Mattuthavani Police Station; Madurai City Police; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 9; restitution of conjugal rights; H.M.O.P.No.916 of 2025; Family Court Madurai; interim visitation right; Government Arts and Science College Melur; petition closed; C.V.Karthikeyan J.; R.Vijayakumar J.; 07.11.2025

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to the petitioner to work out his remedy in H.M.O.P.No.916 of 2025 before the Family Court, Madurai, and to file a necessary application seeking interim visitation right; the Habeas Corpus Petition was closed. ¶29-30

Dr.S.Kasi Pandian Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29-30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's minor son, Master Sankar Pandian (aged 15), is missing or in the illegal custody/confinement of the second respondent (the petitioner's wife), warranting a writ of habeas corpus for his production and handover of custody.

¶19

Court's answer

There is no illegal confinement of the son of the petitioner herein.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The second respondent cannot be said to have shifted her residence; her place of employment is permanent and the petitioner is also aware of the same.

¶27-28

Key takeaways

The petitioner may work out his remedy in the pending HMOP (H.M.O.P.No.916 of 2025, Family Court, Madurai) and also file necessary application seeking interim visitation right.ratio¶21
The court expressed confidence that the learned Family Court Judge, Madurai would take a considered view of the entire issue and pass appropriate orders.obiter¶22-23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (H.C.P.(MD)No.1299 of 2025, decided 07.11.2025; order authored by C.V.Karthikeyan, J., bench comprising C.V.Karthikeyan and R.Vijayakumar JJ.). A father filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that his 15-year-old minor son, Master Sankar Pandian, was missing or in the illegal custody of the second respondent, his wife. The court held that there is no illegal confinement of the petitioner's son; noting that the second respondent's place of employment is permanent and known to the petitioner, it held she cannot be said to have shifted her residence. Directing the petitioner to work out his remedy in the pending H.M.O.P.No.916 of 2025 (under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights) before the Family Court, Madurai, including by filing an application for interim visitation rights, and expressing confidence in the Family Court Judge, the court closed the Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶1

H.C.P.(MD)No.1299 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

H.C.P.(MD)No.1299 of 2025

Dr.S.Kasi Pandian

... Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Mattuthavani Police Station, Madurai City Police, Madurai.

¶11

Pandimadevi ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1^st respondent to produce minor child Master Sankar Pandian, aged 15 years, S/o.Kasipandian before this Court and hand over the custody from the illegal custody of the 2^nd respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶15

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

¶16

H.C.P.(MD)No.1299 of 2025

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

This HCP has been filed by a father complaining that his minor child, aged about 15 years, has been missing or under the custody of the second respondent/his wife.

¶20

2 . It is to be noted that the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.

¶21

916 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner may work out his remedy in the said HMOP and also file necessary application seeking interim visitation right.

¶22

3. We are confident that the learned Family Court Judge,

¶23

Madurai would take a considered view of the entire issue and pass appropriate orders. There is no illegal confinement of the son of the petitioner herein. The third respondent is also employed as Principal in Government Arts and Science College, Melur, Madurai District and

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶25

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

¶26

H.C.P.(MD)No.1299 of 2025

¶27

therefore, she cannot be said to have shifted her residence. Her place of

¶28

employment is permanent and the petitioner is also aware of the same.

¶29

4. Giving that particular liberty to the petitioner, the Habeas