IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 21.12.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Habeas Corpus Petition No.2104/2009 C.Vasudevan .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. The Inspector of Police Villivakkam Police Station Chennai. 3. S.Sendurpandian .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's wife [Surya W/o.Vasudevan aged about 21 years] before this court, now confined in the 3rd respondent house at No.37, 2nd Street, Priyan Nagar, Tuticorin and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.V.R.Bala Subramaniam Addl. Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.D.J.Venkatesh ORDER [The order of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.] Invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this court, one C.Vasudevan has broughtforth this petition for the production of his wife, viz., Surya, aged about 21 years, who is said to be in the illegal custody of her father, the third respondent herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.This court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. Affidavit filed in support of the petition and the earlier order passed by this court on 09.12.2009 are perused. 3.When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 09.12.2009, the parties were present before the court and after the enquiry, an order was passed by this court recording the statement of the detenu that the detenu, Surya, was willing to go with the petitioner and carry on the matrimonial life. But, the petitioner and the detenue apprehended danger in the hands of the relatives of the detenue. Under such circumstances, this court directed the 2nd respondent police to give protection to them and to see that no untoward incident happens and the matter was posted today for further hearing. 4.Today when the matter is called, the detenue Surya, the petitioner and the third respondent were present before the court. 5.The detenue submitted that on the very evening of the day when the order was passed, i.e., 09.12.2009, the third respondent, her father went to the petitioner's brother's shop and questioned about the petitioner's conduct. 6.But, the third respondent submitted that he did not do so and these are false allegations. He left to his native place, Tuticorin on the very evening of 09.12.2009, i.e., the day on which the order was passed by this court. 7.After hearing the parties concerned, this court is of the considered view that there is no meaning in keeping this petition pending and the same has got to be disposed of. 8.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed with an observation that if there is any disturbance to the petitioner and detenue's matrimonial life in the hands of the 3rd respondent or any other relatives, the 2nd respondent is directed to take necessary action in accordance with law. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ap https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. The Inspector of Police Villivakkam Police Station Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr.P.Rajakumar, ADvocate, SR 70618 HCP.No.2104/2009 KA (CO) RH (7.1.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/