Disposed¶46

Venkatesan v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Mar 2026HCP/433/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Habeas Corpus; Article 226 Constitution of India; adult woman detenue found not detained against her will; voluntary relationship with third respondent; mediated settlement repudiated as coerced; intended Family Court dissolution of marriage; custody of minor children left to parents; Probation Officer periodic welfare reports (once in two months, one year); Tambaram Commissionerate; Chitlapakkam Police Station; Madras High Court HCP No. 433 of 2026; decided 23-03-2026; neutral citation 2026:MHC:1217.

What did the court decide?

No production or release ordered; the Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of in terms of the order, the detenue having been found not detained against her will, custody of the minor children left to the petitioner and the detenue, with Probation Officer reports to be filed once in two months for one year.

Venkatesan Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the detenues - Salomi and her two minor female children V.Devi and V.Femina, missing from 27.01.2026 - were in the illegal custody of the third respondent and should be produced and set at liberty. +2 more

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The detenue Salomi is not under any compulsion of any party and is not being detained by any person against her will; consequently there is no illegal detention warranting production.

¶36

Key takeaways

The minor children V.Devi and V.Femina are with the detenue, and their custody is a matter for the petitioner and the detenue themselves to decide.ratio¶38
To allay the petitioner's apprehension regarding the children's future, the Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to obtain a report from the Probation Officer of the jurisdictional police station where the detenue Salomi and the children reside, to be filed with the Registry once in two months for a period of one year, solely to ascertain their well-being.ratio¶45
The Court recorded the detenue's statement that she and the children are presently in Thanjavur and that the children, stated to be aged 12 and 6 years, have been admitted in appropriate schools.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Anita Sumanth J., author; Sunder Mohan J.) - Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP No. 433 of 2026) under Article 226 of Constitution of India by Venkatesan, husband and father, seeking production of his wife Salomi and minor female children V.Devi and V.Femina, missing from 27.01.2026 and allegedly in the illegal custody of R3 (R.Manoj, the petitioner's nephew). After a 12.03.2026 reference to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Center produced a settlement agreement (annexed to the Mediator's interim report of 17.03.2026) under which the petitioner and detenue were to reside together with the children, the detenue stated in Court that she had signed under coercion, did not intend to resume life with the petitioner, wished to live only with R3, and was taking steps before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. Holding that the detenue was under no compulsion of any party and not detained against her will, and that the minor children are with her with custody to be settled between the parents, the Court recorded her statement that she and the children are in Thanjavur with the children (stated aged 12 and 6 years) admitted in schools, and directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to file Probation Officer reports once in two months for one year to ascertain the children's well-being and allay the petitioner's apprehensions. The petition was disposed of in terms of the order.

¶1

2026:MHC:1217

¶2

HCP No. 433 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 23-03-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶9

HCP No. 433 of 2026

¶10

Venkatesan

¶11

S/o. Rengasamy, No.33, Karunanithi Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai.

¶12

..Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Commissionerate Office, Tambaram - 600 045. Chennai.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, T13, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Pallikaranai, Chennai.

¶16

R.Manoj S/o. Raja, No.33, 1^st Floor, Karunanithi Street, Ambedkar Nagar,Chitlapakkam, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai.

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

Prayer: Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the Second Respondent to produce the detenues 1) Salomi, Wife of Venkatesan aged 28 years and 2) minor Female Child, V.Devi, aged 10 and 3) V.Femina aged 5 years who were

¶19

Page1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

HCP No. 433 of 2026

¶22

missing from 27.01.2026 before this Hon’ble Court from the illegal custody of the 3^rd Respondent and set them at Liberty.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Ravi For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr.N.Narkeeran (for R1 & R2) R3 – Served

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶26

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the husband and father of the detenus, who states that the detenue Salomi and two minor children V.Devi and V.Femina were missing from 27.01.2026. He has arrayed his nephew, i.e., his sister’s son, as the third respondent and indicates that the detenue and the children may be with R3.

¶27

On the earlier occasion, on 12.03.2026 when the matter was listed, we, after conversing with the petitioner and the detenus as well as R3, had referred the matter to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Center to attempt an amicable resolution. To be noted, based on our conversation with the petitioner and the detenue, we were aware of the position that the detenue Salomi, was in a relationship with R3 and preferred to continue the same.

¶28

The petitioner, for his part, did not mind if the detenue were to resume matrimonial relation with him. In any event, and whatever may be the fate of

¶29

Page2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

HCP No. 433 of 2026

¶32

their marriage, he has expressed his unease with the intentions of R3 qua the two minor Children, V.Devi and V.Femina.

¶33

The matter was listed on 17.03.2026 and the interim report of the Mediator was annexed with a settlement agreement to the effect that the petitioner and the detenue Salomi have agreed to reside together with their children and that R3 would not interfere with their rights. Since neither the detenue Salomi nor the minor children were present before Court on 17.03.2026, we listed this matter today for their appearance.

¶34

The detenue paints an entirely different picture of events today. She

¶35

says that she was coerced into signing the settlement agreement, is not interested and has no intention of resuming her life with the petitioner, and intends to live only with R3. She says that she is in the process of taking legal action before the Family Court for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner.

¶36

In the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that she is not under any compulsion of any party, and is not being detained by any person against her will.

¶37

As far as the minor children are concerned, they are with the detenue

¶38

and it is for the petitioner and the detenue to come to a decision, in regard to their custody.

¶39

Page3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

HCP No. 433 of 2026

¶42

The detenue and her children are presently in Thanjavur, and the

¶43

detenue states that she has admitted the children, aged 12 and 6 years in appropriate schools. We record this statement.

¶44

However, we do appreciate the apprehension expressed by the

¶45

petitioner qua the minor children as recorded in paragraph 3 supra. We hence direct the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to obtain a report from the Probation Officer of the jurisdictional police station where the detenue, Salomi, and her children V.Devi and V.Femina reside, and file the same with the Registry of the Court once in two months, for a period of one year. This is solely to ascertain their well being and allay the apprehensions of the petitioner in regard to their future.

¶46