IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 01.10.2009 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUBBIAH H.C.P. No.1567 of 2009 S.N.Suresh .. Petitioner ..vs.. 1. The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 2. Inspector of Police, Incharge of Thudiyalur Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District. 3. Jaganathan 4. J.Indira ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's wife, Geetha, aged 27 years, and his child Sandiya, aged 1-1/2 years, daughter of S.N.Suresh, bodily in this Court and consequently set them to liberty by giving them to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.O.R.Abul Kalam For Respondents : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl.P.P., for R1 & R2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, namely, Suresh, has filed this petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his wife Geetha and his minor daughter. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On issue of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ summons, the 2nd respondent-the Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, has produced the detenue before this Court on the previous hearing and since the learned counsel for the petitioner was not available, then the matter is posted today. 3. Today, the detenue is present along with her child. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the love affair between them, the marriage has taken place between himself and the said Geetha, the alleged detenue, on 21.12.2006 and they were living happily at Coimbatore and as a result of which, the child was born on 16.02.2007. While the matter stood thus, when the petitioner came to the office as usual on 16.02.2009, the parents of the detenue, who are shown as respondents 3 and 4, along with rowdy elements, came over the place of the residence of the petitioner and kidnapped his wife along with the child and thereafter, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the detenue and the child were taken away by respondents 3 and 4. Then, he gave a complaint to Thudiyalur Police Station on 18.02.2009, but no action has been taken by the police. In spite of steps taken by the petitioner on many occasions, nothing turned fruitful. Now, he came to know that actually she is under the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4. Under such circumstances, he found no option than to file the habeas corpus petition. 4. The alleged detenue along with the child is produced and she is also enquired. According to her, she is 27 years old; the marriage took place on 21.12.2006; they were living in Coimbatore and the child was born. While she was living with him, she was being harassed by the petitioner and unable to tolerate the harassment, she went to the place of respondents 3 and 4, namely, Thiruninravoor, on her own volition. 5. The said statement of the alleged detenue is recorded. It is clear that the allegation put forth by the petitioner that she was either abducted or kidnapped by the parents was nothing but falsehood. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the marriage between the petitioner and the said Geetha was under the prohibitory relationship; that under such circumstances, a suit has been filed by her before the Family Court, Chennai, on 03.08.2009, which is numbered as O.S.No.135 of 2009, for a declaration that the marriage itself is void and that the matter is posted to 04.11.2009 for the appearance of the petitioner herein, 6. After considering the facts and circumstances and also the statement of the said Geetha, the alleged detenue recorded above, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case, where the petitioner could be given the relief sought for and if aggrieved, he can approach the Civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further made a request that she could be directed to stay with the petitioner for few days, by which an amicable settlement is also possible. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, the Court is unable to appreciate the contention of the petitioner and, therefore, the Court is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gl To 1. The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 2. Inspector of Police, Incharge of Thudiyalur Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.O.R.Abul Kalam, Advocate, SR.No.50548 H.C.P. No.1567 of 2009 RB {CO} TP/12.10.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/