1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.6.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P(MD)No.367 of 2011 A.Sudalaiyandi .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalakkad Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.Murugan 4.Subbammal 5.Murugan .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body or person of the detenue namely S.Pavithra (Aged 17 years), D/o.A.Sudalaiyandi before this Court and hand over custody to the petitioner. For petitioner :Mr.C.Christopher For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor For respondents 3 to 5: Mr.R.Nanda Kumar for Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner/father to trace out his daughter, S.Pavithrea, aged 17 years. According to him, the minor daughter Pavithra was said to be studying in Computer Science at Cape Polytechnic in Aralvoimozhi, Kanyakumari District. On 2.4.2011, his minor daughter went to the college for writing examination and she did not return home. Since the search made by him to trace her was in vain, he gave a police complaint to Aralvoimozhi Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.238/2011 under Section 366(A) IPC. 2. On 20.4.2011, Aralvoimozhi Police secured the detenue and handed over her to his custody through Court but again, she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 left on 23.4.2011 at 2.00 a.m.,. On enquiry, it was revealed that she was forcibly taken by the respondents 3 to 5. Consequently, another complaint was also given to the respondent police. Since no action has been taken so far, the above Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 3. On notice, the third respondent/Murugan has entered appearance through counsel. 4. Today, the petitioner was present before this Court. The third respondent is also present before this Court. The third respondent who is present before this Court has come along with the detenue/Pavithra. 5. On enquiry, daughter of the petitioner/the detenue disclosed that she went out of her house to marry the third respondent/Murugan as per her wish and desire. According to her, she was in love with the third respondent/Murugan, who was her neighbour and known to his family well. She claims that he is a distant relative too. Since there was an objection in the family, she had to go out to get married to the third respondent/Murugan. Now, she submits that she is married to third respondent and is living with the third respondent who is a driver working in a private company and drawing a reasonably good salary. According to her, she has been taken care of well by the third respondent. 6. The third respondent is also present before this Court along with his mother. The third respondent was also called and enquired. While admitting his marriage with the detenue Pavithra, he also submits that she has been taken care of well and his marriage with the detenue has been accepted by her parents also. This fact was confirmed by his mother, who is present before this Court. 7. The petitioner who is present before this Court was called and appraised of these facts. Though he was not able to accept the marriage of his daughter with the third respondent, on realising that his daughter was very adamant and assertive that she would go only with the third respondent, he prayed for passing orders accordingly. 8. We have recorded the statement made by the petitioner, the detenue, the third respondent and the third respondent's mother. We have also discussed the matter in detail with the learned counsel appearing for all the parties. 9. In the light of the fact that the detenue has gone out of the house on her own and got married to the third respondent and expressed her desire to live with the third respondent only, nothing further remains to be considered in this petition excepting directing the detenue to be with the third respondent. The petitioner was suitably advised. Further, he also agreed to let his daughter as per her wish. 10. In the light of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed letting the detenue to go with her husband/the third respondent. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalakkad Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to Mr.C.Christopher, Advocate, SR.No.19728 +One CC to Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, Advocate, SR.No.19428 asvm rl/6c – 14.7.2011 H.C.P.(MD)No.367 of 2011 21.6.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/