Disposed

P.Muthukumar v. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC18 Mar 2026HCP(MD)/347/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband filed a habeas corpus petition seeking production of his wife who was untraceable since December 2025. The State reported an enquiry revealed she had married another person and was living with him in Chennai. Finding no further orders possible, the court disposed of the petition leaving the petitioner free to pursue his remedy in law.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner granted liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

P.Muthukumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 18.03.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶7

H.C.P.(MD)No.347 of 2026

¶8

P.Muthukumar .. Petitioner / Husband of the detenu

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

2.State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to secure the body or person of the detenu namely Kiruthika, aged 24 years and to produce her before this Court and to set her at liberty.

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajith Prakash For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)

¶18

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the husband of the detenue to produce the person or body of the detenue, by name Kiruthika, W/o.Muthukumar, aged 24 years and to set her at liberty.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶20

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he married the detenue on 18.05.2024 in a temple in the presence of their friends. Thereafter, there was a threat from the family members of the detenue. Hence, a complaint was given before the Tattarmadam Police Station, which was taken on file in C.S.R.No.336 of 2024. Thereafter, from December 2025, the whereabouts of the detenue could not be ascertained. Hence, a representation was made to respondents 1 and 2 on 27.01.2026. Since there was no progress in the

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

enquiry, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶25

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that based on the representation/complaint of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and it came to light that the detenue had married another person on 05.09.2024 and is presently living with him in Chennai.

¶26

In view of the above development, no further orders can be passed

¶27

in this Habeas Corpus Petition. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶28

This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with the above said

¶29

liberty.

¶30

(N.A.V.,J..) (P.D.B.,J.,) 18.03.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶31

Indu

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶36

2.The Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶37

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

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. AND P.DHANABAL,J.

¶41

Indu

¶42

H.C.P.(MD)No.347 of 2026

¶43

18.03.2026

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

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

P.Muthukumar v. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthukumar v. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by 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

Mohanraj Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Bazaar

Sathyaraj Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Musiri

Raj @ Mathan @ Selladurai Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Somu

A.M.Saranyan Vs v.G.Geni

M. Saranyan Vs V.G. Geni