1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P(MD)No.1189 of 2011 Goodwin .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Melapalayam. 4.Anne Paulraj .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of detenues, namely, (1) Nathania Angel Queen, D/o.Goodwin, aged about 8 years and (2) Doron Linton Prince, S/o. Goodwin, aged about 6 years, the petitioner's daughter and son respectively before this Court and hand over their custody to the petitioner. For petitioner : Ms.V.Jeyarani For respondents 1 to 3: Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The petitioner is the husband of the fourth respondent. It appears that there are matrimonial disputes between them pending before various forums. In the affidavit, the petitioner has referred to a number of matrimonial proceedings, namely, M.C.No.14 of 2011, C.A.No.176 of 2010, I.D.No.10 of 2011, C.M.P.No.441 of 2011, Crl.OP.Nos.18605 of 2011 etc.,. 2. On the allegation that the minor children, namely, Nathania Angel Queen, aged 8 years, and Doron Linton Prince, aged 6 years have been illegally detained by the fourth respondent, namely, the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner originally filed H.C.P.(MD)No.860 of 2011 before this Court seeking a direction to the police to secure the minor children and to handover them to the custody of the petitioner. That petition was dismissed by this Bench on 25.11.2011 holding that there is no illegal detention because the children are after all in the custody of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 their mother because of the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, which is matrimonial in nature. This Court also gave liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. 3. Though the said petition has been dismissed only on 25.11.2011, the petitioner has again come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition (MD)No.1189 of 2011 seeking similar relief. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has referred to a number of matrimonial proceedings as referred to above but no document whatsoever has been filed before this Court for consideration. It is also not made clear why the present petition has been filed when a similar petition filed in HCP(MD)No.860 of 2011 was dismissed only on 25.11.2011. 4. When this Court expressed that the petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, the learned counsel offered to withdraw this petition. The said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Melapalayam. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. H.C.P(MD)No.1189 of 2011 23.12.2011 (asvm) RJ/18.1.12 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/