A perusal of the CD file shows that the Child Welfare Committee,Kanyakumari District, also after examining the detenu and the unwillingnessof the parents of the detenu to take the detenu back to their home, entrustedthe custody of the minor detenu with the fifth respondent, namely,R.Jeyarani, W/o.Ramu, who is the sister of the petitioner herein.The documents produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutorshows that the detenu in her own handwriting wrote a letter stating that sheis not ready and willing to go with her parents and yet another statementgiven by the fifth respondent, namely, R.Jeyarani, W/o.Ramu, shows that sheis prepared to take care of the detenu at her home.Therefore, the ChildWelfare Committee keeping in mind the fact that the detenu is a minor, took adecision to send her back to her parental home.But, peculiarly andsurprisingly, the parents expressed their unwillingness to take the detenu totheir home for the reason that the fourth respondent has been frequentlygiving phone calls threatening them not to interfere with the life of thedetenu.Therefore, the detenu was sent along with the fifth respondent, whois the sister of the petitioner.It is seen that the registration of the case against the fourthrespondent has ultimately ended in granting anticipatory bail to him by theFast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.We are surprised to seethat how this is possible for the Mahila Court to grant anticipatory bail tothe fourth respondent, who is said to have kidnapped a minor girl.In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, since theparents are not willing to take back the detenue with them, we areconstrained to send the detenu, namely, Jesila, to Vidiyal Home, Muthupatti,Near Palanganatham, Madurai, till she attains the age of 18 years.Wedirect the Authorities of the Home not to permit the fourth and the fifthrespondent at any point of time, to see the detenu.With above directions, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.5.The Superintendent, Vidial Home, Muthupatti, Near Palanganatham, Madurai..[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.] The petitioner, namely, K.Vijayarani, the mother of the detenu, namely,Jesila, has come to this Court seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing therespondents No.1 to 3 to produce the person or body of the Petitioner's minordaughter, namely, Jesila (17/17), D/o.Kannan @ Morris, before this Court andset her at liberty.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner, her husband and the detenu are residing peacefully.Takingadvantage of the fact that the petitioner's husband is a physicallychallenged person, who has lost his hands and one leg in an accident, thefourth respondent Mr.M.Neveen forcibly knocked the door of the petitioner'shouse at 11.30 p.m., on 10.09.2016 and opened the door and finally, kidnappedthe petitioner's minor daughter at knife point.The petitioner's husband,who is a physically challenged person was unable to stop the said illegalactivity made by the fourth respondent, who is already a married man andhaving two children.In themeanwhile, the fourth respondent has obtained Anticipatory Bail byapproaching the Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, inCr.Now, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari, is conducting investigation inthat case.Pursuant thereto, the detenu was secured and producedbefore us.Parents of the detenu and the fifth respondent, who is sister of thepetitioner also appeared before us.After a formal interrogation with thefather and mother of the detenu, the parents have expressed their difficultyin taking the detenu back to their home citing a reason that everyday, thefourth respondent, namely, M.Naveen is frequently visiting the fifthrespondent's house, wherein the detenu has been taking shelter and he hasbeen giving unnecessary phone calls to the parents of the detenu threateningthat if they further interfered with the life of the detenu, they would bedone away with.In view of the said statement, we posed a question to the parents ofthe detenu, since the detenu is minor as on today, her custody should betaken by them as legal guardian.The parents of the detenu jointly repliedstating that they are not in a position to take the custody of the detenuapprehending further complications for the reason that the police had nottaken any legal action against the fourth respondent when they reported tothe police station on receipt of threatening phone calls from the fourthrespondent.At this point of time, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hasproduced the CD file.We are also giving liberty to the parents of the detenu to approachthe jurisdictional police station for police protection if situationwarrants.If any such complaint is lodged by the parents of the detenu, theconcerned Police Officers are directed to register a case against theintruder.2.The Inspector of Police, Ethamozhi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.3.The Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code