1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.124 of 2011 A.Amsaveni,W/o.A.Logakrishnan ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vedasanthur Police Station, Vedasanthur. 3.Rajalingam, S/o.Muthukonar 4.R.Devarajan, S/o.Rajalingam ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband A.Logakrishnan and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Vijayashanthi For Respondents-1 & 2 :Mr.P.N.Pandithurai, Addl.Public Prosecutor. For Respondent-3 & 4 :No appearance. O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J) Alleging that her husband by name A.Logakrishnan is under the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner, the wife of the detenu, has filed this petition for securing him. 2.According to the petitioner, they got married on 29.11.2009 and they have a male baby. While so, on 31.12.2010, her husband went for job and did not come back. Since his whereabouts were not known, she gave a complaint to the police but, no action has been taken so far. She strongly suspects that the 3rd and 4th respondents are keeping her husband under illegal custody. Since no proper information is being given by the respondent police, she has filed this petition for the aforesaid relief. 3.On instruction, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that it is a case of elopement of the petitioner's husband along with one Chitra, the daughter of the 3rd respondent. He brings to our https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 notice that on an earlier occasion also the very same petitioner's husband went along with the daughter of the 3rd respondent and on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, both were secured and since Chitra was a minor, she was handed over to her parents, namely the 3rd respondent and the husband of the petitioner joined with her. Now, after the third respondent's daughter has become a major, the petitioner's husband has once again gone along with her and, therefore, it is a clear case where the petitioner's husband is living along with the daughter of the 3rd respondent and he is not under the illegal custody of any one. 4.Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and taking note of the fact that the detenu, the husband of the petitioner, is a major, aged more than 30 years, he is not under illegal custody of any one, much less the 3rd and 4th respondents. Therefore, nothing further remains to be considered in this petition. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed. gb SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR[CRL SIDE] /TRUE COPY/ TO SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vedasanthur Police Station, Vedasanthur. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to M/s.S.Vijaya Shanthi, Advocate SR.No.15039. Order in HCP(MD)No.124/2011 Dated:26.04.2011 2P/5C RPB 24.05.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/