Disposed¶37

Sangeeth v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC8 Jun 2026HCP(MD)/664/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

H.C.P.(MD) No.664 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; habeas corpus; writ of Habeas Corpus; Article 226 Constitution of India; illegal custody; detenue Muthu Selvi; live-in relationship; proposed marriage; honour killing; forcible detention by father and maternal uncle; Thangaiah; Arumugam; C.S.R. No.197 of 2026; Seidunganallur Police Station; Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi; enquiry and recording of statement; further action in accordance with law; disposed; N. Anand Venkatesh J.; S. Srimathy J.; 08.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to call the detenue for enquiry and record her statement, with further action left open to the second respondent in accordance with law; Habeas Corpus Petition disposed of in the above terms. ¶37

Sangeeth Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 08.06.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶7

H.C.P.(MD) No.664 of 2026

Sangeeth

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

¶12

Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶13

Thoothukudi.

¶14

2.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Seidunganallur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

3.Thangaiah

4.Arumugam

.....Respondents

Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to secure the body or person of the detenue Muthu Selvi, D/o.Thangaiah, aged about 35 years from the illegal custody of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents and produce

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramnath.B

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed against the first and second respondents to secure the body or person of the detenue, aged about 35 years, who is alleged to be in the illegal custody of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents and to set her at liberty.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶28

Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that he had a live-in relationship with

¶30

the detenue and that she is staying at Chennai. Ultimately, the petitioner wanted to marry the detenue. The 3^rd respondent, who is the father and the 4^th respondent, who is the maternal uncle, forcibly detained the detenue and stopped her from contacting the petitioner. The allegations made in the Page 2 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

affidavit filed in support of the petition are that the petitioner received a phone call from the detenue and she informed him that she is in the illegal custody of the 4^th respondent, who is ill-treating her and that there is every possibility of an honour killing in this case. In such circumstances, the petitioner gave a complaint to the second respondent, which was taken on file in C.S.R. No.197 of 2026. Since no action was taken on the complaint, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶33

The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that the detenue is now living with her father. Insofar as the complaint is concerned, the same is pending before the second respondent.

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the detenue, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to call the detenue for enquiry and record her statement. Based on the same, it is left open to the second respondent to take further action in accordance with law.

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

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

¶37