1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM H.C.P.(MD) No.152 of 2011 THIYAGARAJAN S/O.PERUMAL V.P.P.ILLAM OPP. TO MALAYANDI THEATRE USILAMPATTI MADURAI DISTRICT. .. PETITIONER Vs. 1 STATE THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADURAI (RURAL) DISTRICT MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUPPARANGUNDRAM POLICE STATION MADURAI-5. 3 PINNATHEVAN S/O.SIVANKALAI THEVAR 27-A E.B.MAIN ROAD PYKARA, MADURAI-4. 4 SATHYADEVI W/O.PINNATHEVAN 27-A E.B.MAIN ROAD PYKARA, MADURAI-4. 5 KARTHIGADEVI D/O.PINNATHEVAN 27-A E.B.MAIN ROAD PYKARA, MADURAI-4. .. RESPONDENTS Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce the minor child by name Sanjana Devi illegally detained at 27-A, E.B. Main Road, Pykara Madurai-4 by the 3rd to 5th respondents and hand over custody to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban For respondents-1 and 2 : Mr.D.Issac Manuel Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) The petitioner seeks the production of his minor child by name Sanjana Devi before this Court, alleged to have been illegally detained by respondents-3 to 5 and to set her at liberty, so as to enable the petitioner to take custody of the child. 2. Principally, the prayer seems to be for the custody of the minor child by the father who happens to be the petitioner herein. 3. It is seen from the averments in the affidavit filed before this Court that the petitioner got married to one Chithradevi, daughter of the third and fourth respondent and sister of the fifth respondent, on 21.06.2002 at Usilampatti. Thereafter, on account of certain differences, the couple separated. Out of the wedlock, the petitioner has a daughter born in the United States, the citizen of that country, named as Sanjana, the detenue in this petition. 4. It is stated that by order of the District Court of Nevada, the petitioner's estranged wife was given the custody of the minor child till the child attained the age of majority. The petitioner was granted visitation rights for the child. However, subsequently, his estranged wife left the child in the custody of her parents in India and the child is now studying in Vikasa School in Madurai right from kindergarten. The child is now 8 years old and had never visited the United States eversince she was brought to India on 13.09.2004. 5. It is further averred that the petitioner's wife had got married to her boy friend in the United States. Thus coming to know about the marriage, the petitioner made attempt to take custody of the child which was resisted by respondents-3 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed, contending that the petitioner being the natural guardian, he is entitled to have the custody of the child. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 1791 (K.Premalatha Vs. Kumarapandian & others) and CDJ 2008 MHC 5815 (Dakshina Moorthy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District & others) in support of his case that as a natural guardian, the petitioner is entitled to have the custody of the child. 7. We do not find that the said decisions would be of any assistance to the petitioner herein, considering the fact that the petitioner moved the Family Court for dissolution of the marriage in H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2005 before the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, which was subsequently dismissed on account of default by the petitioner. 8. It is not denied by the petitioner that the child was in the custody of her mother after she was brought to India. Going by the fact that the child was never in the custody of the petitioner and that the District Court of Nevada had granted visitation rights to the petitioner, leaving aside the binding character of the said order, we do not find any justifiable ground to entertain this Habeas Corpus Petition. The forum before which the petitioner has to vindicate his grievance is certainly not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but elsewhere In the circumstances, the facts herein are distinguishable from the decisions referred to above. We do not find any ground to admit this Habeas Corpus Petition. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADURAI (RURAL) DISTRICT MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUPPARANGUNDRAM POLICE STATION MADURAI-5. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. H.C.P.(MD) No.152 of 2011 Dated: 23.02.2011 ksv PA/08.03.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/