Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4583
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
P. Kannammal
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police Mettur Police Station Mettur & Others
H.C.P.No.1966 of 2010
Decided On : 22-10-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Parveen, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court has the jurisdiction to issue a direction to investigate and secure a missing person in the context of a family dispute.
Headnote:
Missing Person - Family Dispute - The court directed the police to investigate and secure the missing person in a family dispute case.
Fact of the Case:
Mrs. P. Kannammal filed a petition alleging her elder brother was missing, and a case was registered for man missing. The police contended that there was a strained relationship in the matrimony and the missing person's wife had filed a maintenance case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a strained relationship in the marriage and that the missing person's wife had filed a maintenance case against him. The court directed the police to investigate the case, secure the missing person, and produce him before the concerned court.
Issues: Alleged missing person in a family dispute, strained relationship in the marriage, pending maintenance case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the strained relationship in the marriage and the pending maintenance case, leading to the direction for police investigation and securing the missing person.
Final Decision: The court issued a direction to the police to investigate the case, secure the missing person, and produce him before the concerned court.
(M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mrs.P.Kannammal has brought forth this petition alleging that her elder brother aged 52, was found missing from 10.9.2010; that a complaint was given to the first respondent on 16.9.2010; and that a case was registered for man missing in Crime No.316/2010; but they have not yet secured him.
2. In response to the above, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the enquiry revealed that she is the younger sister of the detenu; that she is 48 and he is 52; that he has already got married; that the second respondent is his wife; that the third respondent is the son of the detenu; that originally, he filed HMOP No.25 of 2004 for divorce, and the same was also ordered in his favour; that apart from that, the second respondent filed a maintenance case seeking maintenance from her husband, the detenu, and the same is also pending; that under the circumstances, on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case has been registered, and now the investigation is pending.
3. After looking into the averments made and also the submissions made on either side, it would be quite evident that there was a strained relationship in the matrimony, and the detenu was missing. The second respondent has also filed a maintenance case against the divorced husband. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of keeping the petition pending, it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to the first respondent police to investigate the case proper, secure him and produce before the concerned Court. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this petition is disposed of.
