1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/11/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.S.NAGAMUTHU H.C.P.(MD)No.816 of 2011 S. Abubacker Siddiq ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thideernagar Police Station, Madurai. 3. Jawahari Anwar Ali Khan 4. Anwar Ali Khan ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenue, the petitioner's daughter namely Thahaseen Syedia daughter of Abubacker Siddiq aged 11 years before this Court and handover the custody to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For respondents : Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor for R.R.1 and 2. Mr.Babu Rajendran for R.R.3 and 4. O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J] The petitioner is the father of one minor child viz., Thahaseen Syedia alias Faheemah Tahaseen, aged 9 years. Her Date of Birth is 15/7/2002. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents 3 and 4 are illegally detaining the minor child and do not even permit the petitioner to see the child. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. The respondents 3 and 4 are present before this Court and they are represented by their learned counsel Mr.Baburajendran. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records. 5. The petitioner himself has filed a copy of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Madurai in G.W.O.P.No.2 of 2003 pertaining to the appointment of guardian for the minor child Faheemah Tahaseen @ Thahaseen Syedia. A perusal of the same would go to show that the respondents 3 and 4 filed the said G.W.O.P before the learned District Judge, Madurai, seeking to appoint themselves as joint guardians of the minor. The petitioner herein was shown as the first respondent in G.W.O.P.No.2 of 2003. By an order dated 19/9/2003, the learned Principal District Judge has allowed the petition, thereby appointing the respondents 3 and 4 as the joint guardians of the minor child. That is how the minor child is now in the custody of the respondents 3 and 4. 6. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was obtained behind the back of the petitioner herein. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. Assuming that the petitioner has got any grievance in respect of the said order of the learned Principal Judge, the remedy lies elsewhere. There is no scope for this Court to give any finding regarding the correctness of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Madurai. Therefore, we are of the view that, so long as the order of the learned Principal Judge, Madurai in G.W.O.P.No.2 of 2003 is in force, the respondents 3 and 4 have got every right to keep the minor child in their lawful custody. The said custody cannot be said to be illegal, so as to entertain this Habeas Corpus Petition. 7. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thideernagar Police Station, Madurai. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC TO MR.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE SR : 41573 +1CC TO MR.BABU RAJENDRAN, ADVOCATE SR : 41501 Mvs SR : 21.12.2011 : 2p/6c H.C.P.(MD) No.816 of 2011 25.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/