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.923 of 2011 Luckeeswaran .. Petitioner Vs. State rep.by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.Jeyapaul 4.Abdul Kadhar Jeylani .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent-Police to produce the person or body of the detenue namely Subashini, aged 25 years, who is under illegal detention of the fourth respondent, and set her at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.S.Muthal Raj For respondents : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 Mr.H.Lakshmishankar for R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner is the husband of the detenue, namely, Subashini, aged 25 years. The marriage between them was celebrated in the year 2006. For sometime, they lived together as husband and wife. During the month of November 2010, due to some misunderstanding between the husband and wife, the detenue deserted the petitioner and started living with her father separately. There were also some efforts taken to compromise the matter between them, but failed. Thereafter, from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 09.03.2011 onwards, the wife of the petitioner has been found missing from the house of her father. The third respondent is the father of the detenu. The third respondent preferred a complaint to the police on 21.03.2011 alleging that his daughter was found missing. When the matter was under enquiry, the third respondent sent a letter to the police on 24.09.2011, stating that on his subsequent enquiry, he came to know that the detenue is in Chennai. He, therefore, requested the police not to take any further action. In the mean time, the petitioner has given a complaint to the police on 19.09.2011. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a direction to the police to produce his wife, Subashini, before this Court and to set her at liberty. 2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The third respondent has not made appearance. The fourth respondent has made appearance through counsel. According to the allegations, the fourth respondent is suspected to have taken the detenue. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has submitted that the fourth respondent has got no connection with the detenue at all. 3.We have considered the above submissions. From the materials available on record, it can be seen that since there was no love-last between the petitioner and the detenue, she deserted him and started living separately with her parents. From the statement of her father, it is crystal clear that she is wilfully staying in Chennai. Therefore, it is not a case of illegal detention so as to issue any direction to the police to secure her before this Court. 4.The Habeas Corpus Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, a direction is given to the second respondent to act upon the complaint of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate, Sr.No.42209 +1cc to Mr.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate, Sr.No. 42207 km ssk/19.12.2011 /6c -2p/- H.C.P.(MD)No.923 of 2011 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/