IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16-12-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH HCP No.2295 of 2009 C.Kannan .. Petitioner vs 1.The Sub Inspector of Police Soolagiri Police Station Krishnagiri District 2.Manjula 3.Lakshmanan 4.Pasupathi 5.Balu 6.Sundaram 7.Seeni 8.Kannappan 9.Perumal .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu M.Sundaram, son of Kannan, aged about 22 years son of the petitioner herein before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sriram For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Kannan, the father of the alleged detenue, has brought forth this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3.As could be seen from the submissions made and the averments found in the affidavit, the petitioner's son was found missing from 2.9.2009, and a complaint was given on 3.9.2009, and the respondents 3 to 9 were the friends of his son, and his son developed illicit intimacy with the second respondent, and she became pregnant, and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the circumstances, he was forced to marry her, and the marriage has taken place on 24.8.2009, and now he is in the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 9, and the age of his son is only 22 years, and the marriage has taken place under forced circumstances, and though a complaint was given no steps were taken by the first respondent police, and under the circumstances, he was compelled to file this petition before this Court. 4.After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking into the averments found in the affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that it does not even require an admission in the hands of this Court. Admittedly, even as per the averments found in the affidavit, the marriage between the petitioner's son aged 22, a major, and the second respondent Manjula has taken place on 24.8.2009. It is further added that they belonged to different community. Once the marriage is an admitted fact, even if the marriage has got to be avoided, it could be done only by the son on the reasons of force or any other invalidating factors as now put forth by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, once the marriage is an admitted fact, now the intention of the petitioner is to keep them separated and that too when they belonged to different community. Hence no question of any forcible custody or taking away of the petitioner's son by his wife, the second respondent, would arise. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv To: 1.The Sub Inspector of Police Soolagiri Police Station Krishnagiri District 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. HCP No.2295 of 2009 SGL (CO) RH (30.12.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/