M.M. Sundresh, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner S.Nalini, W/o. Sriharan @ Murugan, Ct.No.810 aged about 52 years, now confined as a life convict in Special Prison for Women, Vellore before this Court and to release her on ordinary leave for a period of six months in accordance with law.)

1. Heard the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents seeking ordinary leave for a period of six months on the premise that she has to make arrangements and thereafter conduct the marriage of her daughter.

3. Considering the limited scope of the petition filed, we refrain from going into unnecessary details.

4. The petitioner read out her grievance through a written speech. From the above, we could understand that she seeks six months ordinary leave on two grounds. First is with respect to the arrangement for her daughter’s marriage and thereafter conduct of the same. The second is to attend and treat her ailing father-in-law who is stated to be suffering from cancer. On the second plea, the petitioner stated that it is the fond hope of her father-in-law that marriage is arranged for the grand daughter and performed during his life time. Though the petitioner has poured out her grievance including incarceration for nearly 28 years, we are not willing to go into the same as any adjudication or observation over it would be beyond the scope of this petition.

5. The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules’) provides for a maximum period of 30 days as ordinary leave for a convict at a point of time. Therefore, this Court can consider granting of leave within the maximum limit prescribed under the Rule. The learned State Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that Rule 20 which speaks about the ground for grant of ordinary leave does provide for arrangement and participation of the marriage of the children of the prisoner as a ground for considering the ordinary leave. In that eventuality, it is accordingly submitted that the petitioner will have to comply with Rule 25 of the Rules. As she has not stated about the names of the sureties, address of the place in which she is going to stay, she will have to be directed to furnish the same. Needless to state that she will have to be escorted with the Police as done in the earlier case to a convict involving the similar offence granted by the Government in G.O.(2D).No.300 Home (Pri.III) Department dated 23.09.2017. Therefore, it is fairly submitted by the learned State Public Prosecutor that appropriate orders can be passed in the light of the Rules governing.

6. The submissions made by the learned State Public Prosecutor was explained to the petitioner. On the question of escort, the petitioner submits that she would not be in a position to pay for the cost. Therefore, she has pleaded that while there can be an escort, the expenses will have to be borne by the respondents themselves.

7. We find merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is having an unmarried daughter, aged about 27 years, who could not live with the parental guidance is not in dispute. Rule 20 also provides for grant of ordinary leave in such an eventuality. However, Rule 22 speaks about the maximum of 30 days as ordinary leave. Though the Rule speaks about extension of the eligibility, the same can be only be exercised after the initial grant. Thus, we concur with the statement made by the learned State Public Prosecutor that 30 days is the maximum period which can be permitted at the time of granting leave under the Rules. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the State Government itself