1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.6.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P(MD)No.404 of 2011 P.Sankara Narayanan .. Petitioner vs. 1.State rep. by its the Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4.M.Ganesh 5.Muthiah .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to secure the petitioner's minor daughter Vigneshwari, aged 17 years from the illegal custody of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 and to produce the detenu before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel, for M/s.K.Prabhu For respondents 1 to 3: Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor For respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.G.Bagath Singh ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN,J) The petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus petition to trace out his minor daughter, Vigneshwari, aged about 17 years studying First Year B.E., in the Sengunthar Engineering College, Erode. She was found missing from 22.5.2011. On enquiry, it was revealed that the fourth respondent, who belongs to the same place, has taken her out and kept her under illegal custody. The enquiry further revealed that the fifth respondent, being the father of the fourth respondent is also helping the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 fourth respondent in keeping her against her wish in an unknown place. Though a police complaint was given, the same was not looked into seriously. Hence, the above Habeas Corpus Petition was filed. 2. After notice, the detenue, Vigneshwari appeared through a counsel before this Court along with the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent and the fifth respondents are also represented by the counsel. 3. According to the detenue/Vigneshwari, she has become a major and married the fourth respondent, Ganesh on her own volition on 15.6.2011 at Arulmighu Kalayana Sundareswarar Kamatchi Temple at Melur and since then, she has been living with the fourth respondent. She further states that she would like to be only with the fourth respondent and she is not prepared to go along with the petitioner/father. 4. The petitioner is also present before this Court along with his wife. Thus, the parents of the detenue are present. 5. When we interacted with them, they were not happy about their daughter's marriage with the fourth respondent and they were not able to accept the marriage and in the bargain, they did not agree to take back the detenue along with the fourth respondent and left the detenue to act according to her wish. 6. On the other hand, the detenue is very firm and assertive that she would like to be only with her husband, if her marriage is not accepted by her father/petitioner herein. 7. The fifth respondent, father of the fourth respondent, is also present before this Court. He was also called and he was enquired by us. He also told us that the marriage between the petitioner's daughter and his son is known to him and he is prepared to accept the marriage and would treat the detenue, Vigneshwari, as his daughter-in-law, and he would take care of the detenue and his son well. 8. Learned counsel appearing for on either side were briefed of these facts. 9. In fact, the detenue/Vigneshwari, daughter of the petitioner is a major and she has taken a decision on her own to marry the fourth respondent/Ganesh and prepared to live with him leaving the petitioner her father. Under the circumstances, this Court is left with no option excepting to setting her at liberty to be on her own. The petitioner/father was also explained and briefed about the legal position. 10. Inasmuch as the fact that the petitioner/father has left her daughter to be on her own and the daughter/detenue has taken a decision to be with the fourth respondent/her husband, nothing further remains to be considered in this petition excepting recording the fact that the detenue appeared before this Court and decided to go along with her husband/the fourth respondent herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC TO MR.G.BAGATHSINGH, ADVOCATE SR.19006 asvm SR : 30.06.2011 : 3p/6c H.C.P.(MD)No.404 of 2011 17.6.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/