1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P.(MD)No.997 of 2011 Kanniga Parameswari .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Inspector of Police, Theni Town Police Station, Theni. 3.S.Deiveekarani (Teacher), Government High School, Thennilai, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Mr.A.M.Jayachandran, aged 56 years, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaravel For respondents : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2 Mr.R.Selvaraj for R3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner Kanniga Parameswari, claims to be the wife of Mr.A.M.Jayachandran, aged 56 years (the detenu herein). According to the petitioner, the detenu was married to the third respondent through whom, he has got three daughters. But the third respondent deserted him. The petitioner herself was earlier married to one Mr.Jayakannu. However, she had separated herself from Jayakannu and joined with the detenu in the year 1995. Thus, from the year 1995 onwards, the detenu has been living with the petitioner as her husband. The detenu took her and her two children born to her through her first husband, wherever the detenu was working, and living with him. The detenu had undergone three surgeries during the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. According to the petitioner, she only spent about Rs.10 lakhs and saved him. On 04.04.2011, according to the petitioner the detenu suddenly suffered from paralytic attack and thereafter she admitted him in a hospital at Paramakudi as well as in Madurai and saved him. While so, on 22.08.2011, according to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner, five unidentified persons came to their house and abducted her husband, namely, the detenu. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the police on 22.08.2011, but the detenu was not secured. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to secure the detenu and to set him at liberty. 2.Today, the detenu has been produced before this Court. We are able to see that the detenu is suffering from paralytic attack and he is also not in a position to speak fluently, however, he is able to understand the queries made by the Court and to answer the queries clearly. When enquired by this Court, the detenu stated that he is willing to go along with the petitioner. The queries were made to the detenu in the presence of the learned counsel on either side and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. A number of questions were put to the detenu in order to ascertain whether he was able to answer the questions. We are fully satisfied that the detenu fully understood all the queries made and repeatedly he was telling the Court that he was willing to go only with the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent never visited the detenu for the past 18 years. But the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner has got no right whatsoever to keep the detenu because she is not the legally wedded wife. The learned counsel for the third respondent would further submit that the third respondent is the legally wedded wife and she is entitled to take the detenu into her residence. 4.We have considered the above submissions. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, this Court cannot resolve the dispute as to whether the petitioner has legally married the detenu and whether the third respondent still continues to have the marital status with the detenu. When the detenu himself has made a clear statement before this Court, that he is willing to reside only with the petitioner, he cannot be compelled to go along with the third respondent. Therefore, we are inclined to set him at liberty and to allow him to go along with the petitioner. If the third respondent has got any grievance in this respect, she can always work out her remedy in the manner known to law. We make it clear that any observation which we have made in this order shall not be an impediment for the competent Civil Court to decide the issues between the parties. 5.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detenu is permitted to go along with the petitioner. However, liberty is given to the third respondent to work out her remedy in the manner known to law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The District Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Inspector of Police, Theni Town Police Station, Theni. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.R.Selvaraj, Advocate, Sr.No.42418 KM GH : 15.12.2011 : 3p/5c H.C.P.(MD)No.997 of 2011 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/