The deceptive manner in which the children were brought to India and the failure to inform the petitioner about the divorce led to the court's decision to restore the custody of the children to the petitioner.

Raja Elango .J.

1. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenues, by name, Prem Kumar aged 14 years and Praveen Kumar aged 11 years has filed this habeas corpus petition for production of her minor children, who are illegally confined by the second and third respondents.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:

(a) The petitioner married the first respondent, viz., Kumarapandian on 012. 1994 as per Hindu rites and customs at Vellore; subsequent to the marriage, they lived together in Vellore District; consequently, they went to Singapore; out of the wedlock, two sons were born, their respective date of birth being 15.01.1996 and 10.07.1998. Further, due to some misunderstanding that arose between the petitioner and the first respondent, the first respondent filed HMOP No.56 of 2003 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Vellore, seeking divorce, and at the intervention of the elders, the same was withdrawn.

(b) Again by filing HMOP No.60 of 2006, the first respondent obtained an exparte decree of divorce and custody of the children on 011. 2007, and the same was not intimated to the petitioner. Without informing the order obtained by the first respondent in his favour, he continued to live with the petitioner at Singapore. On 31.01.2009, the first respondent without informing the petitioner brought the children to India. Ever since from that date, the children were with the first respondent. Inasmuch as the first respondent has taken the custody of the children by a deceptive manner, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Habeas Corpus Petition for restoration of the custody of the children.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the petitioner would submit that the first respondent with an ulterior motive to desert the petitioner has indulged in cruel activities; further he had illicit relationship with an Indonesian girl with whom he has been regularly talking over phone and sending SMS and only with an intention to marry her, he obtained ex parte decree of divorce. It is further submitted that the first respondent during the absence of the petitioner at home, broke open her bureau removed the passport and other documents of her children and arranged the flight for himself and the minor sons and to India. He further went to the extent of disturbing the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the house at Choolai, Chennai. The children are admitted at Valliammal Residential School at Madras and the petitioner is prevented from meeting them and during summer vacation the second and respondents herein have detained them in a secret place.

4. Denying and refuting the allegations/averments made by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that only to spoil the reputation of the first respondent, the petitioner has averred baseless and slanderous facts. He would further submit that the allegation that he obtained ex parte decree of divorce was not true, since notices were sent to the petitioner to the address at which she resided. Further the only intention of bringing the children from Singapore was to give them good education and proper care, since they were neglected and abused by the petitioner and they were deprived of love and affection from their mother, the petitioner herein. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that she is not a Hindu by living and that she embraced Christianity and has been attending the prayers and spent the money on religious institutions in order to create a niche for herself in the society.

5. We are not inclined to state anything regarding the allegations made by the respective parties, inasmuch as the allegations are not a matter to be decided by this Court and the same is not in question before us.

6. The main points for consideration are as to:

(i) Whether the HCP a