M.Kingsli Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 5116 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to produce the child of the petitioner's son namely Medwyn Sam Kemuel,

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

S/o.Kingsli Maharaja, aged about 6 years to produce before this Court and handover the custody to the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Gnana Sumathi.G For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the child of the petitioner's son, namely Medwyn Sam Kemuel, S/o. Kingsli Maharaja, aged about 6 years, before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶23

It is seen from the records that already there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and the petitioner had also filed a petition seeking visitation rights in I.A.No.3/2024 in IDOP No.

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶25

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

¶26

800/2021 and the same was allowed by the Family Court, Madurai by order dated 01.12.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is that even thereafter, the 3^rd respondent has not complied with the order and the petitioner does not even know the whereabouts of the child. A complaint was also given in this regard to the respondent Police and since the same has not been acted upon, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶27

In the considered view of this Court, the visitation right has already been granted to the petitioner by a competent Court. When this order is in force and the 3^rd respondent is refusing to comply with the order, the petitioner has to necessarily work out the remedy before the concerned Court and ensure that the order is acted upon. Instead, filing a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court is not going to enure in favour of the petitioner in any manner. We have repeatedly held that matrimonial dispute and the dispute regarding guardianship and custody, which include visitation rights, can never be dealt with in a Habeas Corpus Petition. This is yet another case, which has come before this Court seeking custody of the child and more particularly, where an order has already been passed in

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

favour of the petitioner by a competent Court. Even though we were inclined to impose cost in this case, considering the fact that the father has approached this Court seeking custody of the child, we restrain ourselves from passing any such adverse orders. It is left open to the petitioner to work out the remedy before the competent Court in the manner known to law.

¶31