1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM H.C.P.(MD) No.126 of 2011 B.Simpson Raj .. Petitioner versus 1.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), C2 Subramaniapuram Police Station, Madurai. 2.C.Immanuvel Balamurugan 3.Chandrasekar 4.Baby, W/o Chandrasekar ..Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the first respondent to produce the detenu minor Mark Ethan aged about 7 years from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 4 and handover the custody to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For respondents : Mr.D.Isaac Manuel, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer for R2 to R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) The petitioner is admittedly not having the custody of the child for a long time. In view of the differences between him and his wife, he filed a divorce petition in M.C.No.2170/06 on the file of Principal Court, Bangalore, wherein an order of divorce has been granted to the petitioner. It is further seen that H.C.P.No.203/08 was filed before this Court and the minor child-Mark Ethan was produced before this Court and this Court, passed an order on 26.06.2008 permitting the petitioner to take the child for three days, i.e. from 27.06.2008 to 29.06.2008, and to handover the child back to his mother in the presence of the Pastor of the Church, and the same was complied with. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone abroad to Muscat. 2.It is stated that he visited the child whenever he came here and he also got married after the divorce. Further it is stated that he has filed a petition to set aside the exparte order passed in G.W.O.P. No.25 of 2007 and the same was dismissed, as against which an CRP was filed before this Court in CRP No.533 of 2009. Further it is stated that the petitioner's earlier wife also got married subsequently and she died on 05.02.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The petitioner's case is that the child was taken by the respondents 2 to 4 to Madurai and hence the present HCP. 4.On notice, the respondents 2 to 4 have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that after the death of the petitioner's divorced wife, the child is under the custody of the maternal grandparents. Thus, the position as of today is that the petitioner never had the custody of the child, and after the demise of the petitioner's divorced wife, the child is under the custody of the maternal grandparents. If the petitioner has any grievance over that, the filing of HCP is not the remedy. 5.Under the circumstances, we do not find any justification in granting the prayer as sought for by the petitioner, since the HCP itself is not maintainable. Accordingly the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), C2 Subramaniapuram Police Station, Madurai. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. KM H.C.P.(MD) No.126 of 2011 01.03.2011 TR : 15.03.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/