1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN H.C.P(MD)No.245 of 2011 P.Ramesh .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.Murugaperumal 3.M.Pandiamala .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 1st respondent to produce the body of the detenue, Madubala, minor aged 4 years and 10 months, before this Court and hand over custody to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.R.Appavu Rethinam For 1st respondent: Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor For respondents 2&3: Mr.R.Anand ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA , J) The petitioner is the father of the detenue/child. According to the petitioner, his child/detenue is illegally detained by the respondents 2 an 3 who are maternal grand parents of the detenue. It is further stated that he also made a complaint to the first respondent but no action has been taken on the complaint. Further, it is stated that he has also filed a petition for custody of the child - detenue before the Family Court. 2. Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and further, the petitioner's wife i.e. the daughter of the respondents 2 and 3, consumed poison and died on 7.1.2011. Therefore, the counsel submitted that it would be safer for the detenue – child to live with her grand parents. 3. Heard the Counsel. The detenue – child was produced before us. The petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 are also present before us. Further, the petitioner himself requested this Court to inter-act with his daughter who is the detenue. The detenue – child refused to inter-act with the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has already moved the appropriate authroity for the custody of the child. 4. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, expecially the age of the detenue – child and the fact that she is under the custody of the grand parents who are respondents 2 and 3, we are of the view that the detenue – child Madubala is not under the illegal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 custody of any one, much less the respondents 2 and 3. 5. The Habeas Corpus Petition is closed with the above observations. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if so advised, in accordance with law, for appropriate remedy. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. asvm H.C.P(MD)No.245 of 2011 09.08.2011 TR : 22.08.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/