1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI H.C.P.(MD)No.220 of 2011 C.Nagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Police Station, Virudhunagar. 3.M.Sivaramakrishnan .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter namely Pichayammal, aged about 32, before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl.Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner to trace out his daughter-Pichayammal, aged about 32 years, said to be missing from 26.06.2010. According to him, his daughter Pichayammal is married to one Muthuvel and having three children. They were living happily in their place. But she developed illegal relationship with the third respondent and on account of that, the detenue has been abducted by the third respondent on 26.06.2010. Since then, she is said to be under the illegal custody of the third respondent. Since the complaint given to the Police on 15.12.2010 has not been looked into seriously by the respondent-Police, the present HCP has been filed by the petitioner / father. 2.Today, the respondent-Police has produced the detenue-Pichayammal before this Court. The petitioner -father is also present. 3.On enquiry, the detenue-Pichayammal has told us that due to certain misunderstanding with her husband-Muthuvel, she has left the matrimonial home on her own and went to her father's place/petitioner herein. But at her father's place, she was accused, blamed and subjected to harassment by her father for having deserted her husband and her children and come to his house. Not being able to put up with it, she had left the house of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 father and went to the third respondent's house who gave her mental solace and accommodated her. Since then she has been living with the third respondent. Thus according to her, she has been living with the third respondent for the last 1 ½ years. The three children are said to be with her husband-Muthuvel and her father / the petitioner herein. 4.However, because of her misunderstanding with her husband-Muthuvel and her father/the petitioner herein, the detenue asserts that she would not go along with the petitioner nor to her husband's house. The third respondent is present before this Court and he also admits that the detenue is living with him. 5.The detenue-Pichayammal, aged about 32 years, has clearly expressed her desire and wish to go only along with the third respondent with whom she has been living for the last 1 ½ years. This fact has been informed to the petitioner herein / the father of the detenue. 6.Though the petitioner /father is not able to accept her living with the third respondent, the only submission made by him is that let the three minor children who are with him, may also be sent along with the detenue/their mother as he is finding extremely difficult to maintain them at this age and stage. 7.When this was informed to the detenue and Sivaramakrishnan/ the third respondent, both of them are ready and willing to take the three minor children with them and maintain them. The specific case of the detenue is that her minor children are not allowed to see her by her father. 8.While recording the submissions made by the detenue and the third respondent, the petitioner is hereby directed to handover all the three children to the detenue-Pichayammal at the earliest. On such handing over, the detenue-Pichayammal should take care of their welfare and maintain them and give them proper education. The third respondent is also directed to take care of the three children without affecting their interest and welfare. 9.In the event of the husband of the detenue objects to the handing over of the minor children to the detenue / the mother of the minor children, the parties are at liberty to go before the appropriate Court for redressal. 10.With regard to mortgage of petitioner's jewellery by the detenue- Pichayammal, and to the request of the petitioner to return back the mortgage papers, she has stated that she would give an Authorisation Letter to her father to enable her father/the petitioner herein to go and redeem the jewels from the place of mortgage on behalf of his daughter. The requisite letter shall be obtained by the petitioner's counsel today from the detenue. 11.In the light of the above, nothing further remains to be considered in this HCP and accordingly the same is closed. 12.In the event of a decision taken by the petitioner to handover the children to the detenue, the petitioner/father of the detenue may handover the children to the respondent police, within a period of 10 days from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 date of receipt of a copy of this order, with prior information to the petitioner. On such information received, the respondent-Police shall inform the detenue-Pichayammal to come and to take the children with her on the appointed date. The date of handing over may be intimated to the respondent-Police in advance, so that the respondent-Police may inform the detenue to come and take the children. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Police Station, Virudhunagar. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.17842 KM H.C.P.(MD)No.220 of 2011 09.06.2011 TR : 13.06.2011 : 3p/5c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/