The court prioritized the well-being of the minor child by permitting visitation rights to the petitioner as an interim measure, without deciding on custody.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce the detenue petitioner-s wife namely Nirosha aged about 32years or her body and the petitioner-s Saijanan aged about 5 years before this Court and set them at liberty.)

S. Vaidyanathan, J. & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

The petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to secure and produce the petitioner-s wife and minor son before this Court from the illegal custody of the 3rd respondent. Apart from that the petitioner contended that his wife is having illicit relationship with the third respondent.

2. The petitioner has given a complaint before the second respondent on 23.04.2022 which has been taken up on file in Cr.No.354 of 2022 under the caption “women missing“ and “boy missing“. After notice to the respondents, they have secured the petitioner-s wife and minor son and produced them before this Court.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2.

4. Heard the petitioner, Nirosha/wife of the petitioner, minor/Saijanan son of the petitioner and the mother in law of the petitioner.

5. We have enquired the wife of the petitioner, she denied the allegation of illicit relationship with the 3rd respondent and would further submit that on account of the torture given by the petitioner, she and her minor son were staying in the hostel with the help of the 3rd respondent. At present, she is staying with her mother and she is not interested in joining with her husband/petitioner. Further, she has also stated no objection for her husband to visit the child on every Sunday.

6 .On enquiry, the mother in law of the petitioner has stated that due to the family dispute, her daughter had gone out of the house and if she is now willing to stay with her and that she has no objection in accommodating her daughter and the grandson and undertakes that she will take care of them. She had further stated no objection in the petitioner visiting her house on every Sunday to see his son and to take him outside.

7. We are not inclined to decide the custody of the children and taking note of the plight of the minor child, the visitation right should not be deprived. Hence, as an interim measure, we permit the petitioner to visit the child in the mother in law house at No.4/35, Ellaikattirruppu Street, Thirumullaivasal, Sirkali Taluk, Nagapattinam District and take his son outside after 9.00am and drop him back before 6.00pm. on the same day. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not indulge in any unpleasant situations warranting further orders. The petitioner is also at liberty to work out his remedy with regard to the custody of the child before the appropriate forum.

8. With the above observation and directions, this HCP is closed.